Ex Parte Nomula - Page 5

               Appeal 2007-0656                                                                            
               Application 10/653,584                                                                      
                      For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s § 112, 1st                          
               paragraph, rejection of claims 1-8 as lacking written description for the                   
               claim phrase “thinner than the inner layer.”                                                

               35 U.S.C. § 112, 2ND PARAGRAPH REJECTION   FOR                                              
               INDEFINITENESS OF THE CLAIM PHRASE “SUBSTANTIALLY                                           
               ENTIRELY”1                                                                                  

                      Appellant argues that “substantially” modifies the term “entirely” to                
               indicate that “the inner layer need not be formed entirely of polypropylene,                
               but rather must be formed substantially entirely of polypropylene” (Br. 9).                 
               Appellant further contends that the Federal Circuit in Verve, LLC v. Crane                  
               Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 62 USPQ2d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2002) has upheld                       
               the use of the term “substantially” in patent claims (Br. 10).                              
                      We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and are not                          
               persuaded by them for the reasons given below.                                              
                                                                                                          
               1  The Examiner indicates that since “substantially entirely” was added to                  
               distinguish over another reference that has a layer that contains some degree               
               of polypropylene, “it is essential to the prosecution of the application to be              
               able to construct what degree of polypropylene purity is meant by the claim                 
               phrase “substantially entirely”” (Answer 12).  In light of the significance of              
               the meaning of the claim phrase “substantially entirely,” the Examiner need                 
               not have dropped the prior art rejection when the language of the claim is                  
               subject to conditional interpretations.  Rather, under such circumstances, the              
               Examiner should make a 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph, rejection to address                 
               the indefiniteness of the claim language and, if possible, make a prior art                 
               rejection (e.g., a § 102 or § 103 rejection) based on a conditional                         
               interpretation of the claim language that would be encompassed by the prior                 
               art.  Ex parte Saceman, 27 USPQ2d 1472, 1474 (B.P.A.I. 1993); Ex parte                      
               Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (B.P.A.I. 1984). The entry of simultaneous                       
               rejections (e.g., 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, 2nd paragraph, 102 and 103) avoids                      
               piecemeal examination and appellate review.  Ionescu, 222 USPQ at 540.                      
                                                    5                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013