Appeal No. 2006-2702 Page 3
Application No. 09/881,234
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
Definiteness:
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite in the recitation of the term “task definition.” The examiner finds
(Answer, page 3), “[c]laims 1 (line 18) and 13 (lines 22-23) recite the phrase ‘said
task definition’ which is rejected due to the lack of clear antecedent basis.
Several task definitions are mentioned previously in these claims so it is unclear
to which one this phrase is referring.” According to the examiner (id.), “[c]laims
2-12 and 14-23 are also rejected due to their direct or indirect dependency from
claims 1 and [1]3.”
While appellants admit (Brief, page 7), “the claim language is not
necessarily as clear as it could be, appellants assert (Brief, page 8), “the claim
language is sufficiently clear to refer to the immediately preceding form of the
term ‘all parts of a task definition’ as used in the term ‘all parts of a task definition
and data elements referenced by said task definition.’” The examiner is not
persuaded by appellants’ argument finding instead (Answer, page 10) that “‘said
task definition’ is equally applicable to be referring to other ‘task definition’
recitations previously found in the claims, and ‘said task definition’ does not
clearly differentiate the limitation to only include the immediately preceding form
of the phrase that [a]ppellants intend as antecedent basis.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007