Appeal 2007-0144
Application 09/846,907
administer the two different networks. In contrast, the specification's
mentions of "a network administrator administering the LAN,"
(Specification 8), may imply that the "network adminis trator" and the "LAN
administrator" are the same entity that administer the same LAN. Under the
latter interpretation, however, it is unclear whether that LAN is the "Radio
LAN." It is also uncertain whether the "network administrator," the "LAN
administrator," or both administer the wired network.
The Appellant's rep eated references to "the network administrator"
and the "LAN administrator" in contesting the Examiner's rejection, (Br. 17-
22; Reply Br. 4-5, 7,9-11), emphasize the need to unders tand the scope of
these terms. Therefore, we reject claim 1 and claim 2, which depends
therefrom, as indefinite.
III. ANTICIPATION REJECTION
We now turn to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2.
A. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An art rejection should not be based on "speculations and
assumptions." In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CC PA
1962). "All words in a claim must be consid ered in judging the patentability
of that claim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be
ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013