Appeal No. 2006-2702 Page 4
Application No. 09/881,234
As set forth in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2173.05(e),
8th ed. Rev. 3, August 2005, “the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for
terms does not always render a claim indefinite.” Instead, the legal standard for
indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C § 112, second paragraph, is whether a claim
reasonable apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. See, Amgen Inc. v.
Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1030 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
As we understand the claims “data elements and task definitions” are sent
to a master central processing unit (CPU). When “all parts of a task definition”
and the “data elements referenced by the task definition” are available at the
master CPU the “task definition for each task” as well as the “data elements
referenced by the task definition” are then sent from the master CPU to one of a
plurality of slave CPUs. Therefore, we agree with appellants (Brief, page 8), in
that the phrase “said task definition,” as it appears, e.g., in line 18 of claim 1,
refers “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.’”
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite in the recitation of the term “task
definition.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007