Appeal No. 2006-1293 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/437,840
teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Id.
The examiner's focus during examination of claims for compliance with the
requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether the
claims meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision. If the scope of the
invention sought to be patented cannot be determined from the language of the claims
with a reasonable degree of certainty, a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is appropriate.
With this as background, we analyze the specific rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, made by the examiner of the claims on appeal. The
examiner states:
In claim 7, line 6, "a plurality of lamps" is indefinite since the
applicant defines in claim 1 "at least one lamp" so it is not
clear whether the applicant is trying to state that the at least
one lamp includes a plurality of lamps or whether that
applicant is defining a plurality of lamps in addition to that at
least one lamp. In claim 7, line 5, "the panel" is indefinite
since it is not clear which panel the applicant is referring to
since the applicant defines a plurality of panels and the
applicant should make it clear whether the four panels
defined in line 2 are the same as the ones defined in claim 1
[answer at page 3].
The appellant argues:
An amendment is being submitted herewith to overcome the
objections as to claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. However, with respect to the Examiner's
requirement to change the claims to recite "the at least one,"
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007