Appeal 2007-0144
Application 09/846,907
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1030
(Fed. Cir.1991)). The "inquiry therefore is merely to determine whether the
claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity." In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). In particular, a claim is
indefinite "where the language 'said lever' appears in a dependent claim
where no such 'lever' has been previously recited. . . ." Ex parte Moelands, 3
USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (B.P.A.I. 1987).
B. ANALYSIS
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part "the network administrator."
No such "network administrator," however, was previously recited in the
claim. Furthermore, the relation between "the network administrator" and
the "LAN administrator," which was previously recited in the claim, is
uncertain. Those of skill in the art would not understand whether these
expressions refer to the same or different entities. Nor would they
understand whether the "authentication-authorizing or rejecting instruction"
is input by the same entity to which the "information regarding the mobile
station" is displayed.
The claim's recitation of both "a network constructed of w ired
transmission," (pmbl.), and "a radio LAN," (id.), imply that the "network
administrator" and the "LAN administrator" are different entities that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013