Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
indefinite because it confusingly implies that the "second wall surface"
extends away from itself. The rejection of claim 16 is sustained.
Although we think that Patent Owners meant to claim "said second
wall surface extending . . . in a direction away from said bottom surface," as
evidenced by the proposed amendment, claim 16 is indefinite as it stands.
"[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities
should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and
clarification imposed. . . . An essential purpose of patent examination is to
fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in
this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible,
during the administrative process." In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Patent Owners' proposed
amendment would overcome the indefiniteness rejection.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)
Claims 1, 2, 9-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Brahmbhatt
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brahmbhatt
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brahmbhatt and Murphy.
- 38 -
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013