Appeal 2007-0801
Application 10/654,357
27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993) as support for the
conclusion that claim 81 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the invention. Appellants’ conclusory remarks do not offer any explanation
why the cited MPEP and prior Board decision are not applicable to claim 81
on appeal. As noted above, patent drawings are not considered to be to scale
and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could not readily ascertain the
metes and bounds of the invention encompassed by claim 81.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s § 102 rejection, but we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
under § 112, 2nd ¶. Consequently, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
clj
Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4
Last modified: September 9, 2013