Appeal 2007-0144
Application 09/846,907
obviou s -- the claim becomes indefinite." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382,
1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
B. ANALYSIS
Here, for the reasons mentioned regarding the indefiniteness rejection,
speculations and assumptions would be required to decide the scope of
claim 1. Therefore, we reverse pro forma the anticipation rejection of the
independent claim and of claim 2, which depends therefrom. We emphasize
that our reversal isbased on procedure rather than on the m erits of the
rejection. The reversal does not mean that we consider the claims to be
patentable vel non as presently drafted.
IV. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
The Examiner objected to the Appellant's Brief on Appeal for
"fail[ing] to include much material being referenced from the specification."
(Answer 3.) "It is Appellant's belief[, however,] that particularly in viewof
the short nature of the present specification and the concentration of the
description of its operation at the sections of the specification specifically
referenced in APPELLANT'S SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMED SUBJECT
MATTER as originally filed as part of its BRIEF O N APPEAL, that the
SUMA RY [sic] OF THE CLAIMED SUBJECT M ATTER as presented in
its BRIEF ON APPEAL is appropriate under the Rules." (Reply Br. 2.)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013