Appeal 2007-1447
Application 10/214,588
OTHER ISSUES
In any further prosecution of the present application, the Examiner
should consider rejecting claims 1 through 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly claim the
subject matter of the invention. Independent claim 1 recites a first, second
and third receiving systems being part of a document display apparatus.
However, Appellant’s Specification, at pages 11, and 12, merely discusses
the display device without providing any particular structure corresponding
to the claimed receiving systems. As such, the recited receiving systems are
misleading and confusing thereby not particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the invention. Dependent claims 2 and 3 incorporate the
deficiencies of claim 1 by virtue of their dependency.
DECISION
We have affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 through
3 and 7.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013