Appeal 2007-1594
Application 10/600,379
REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
All words in a claim must be considered 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 obvious--the claim
becomes indefinite. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496
(CCPA 1970). Our analysis of the claims indicates that considerable speculation as
to meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of such claims
needs to be made. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on such
speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295
(CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (BdPatApp&Int 1981).
Accordingly, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. ' 103 rejection of claims 20-22 and enter
the rejection noted hereinbelow. It must be noted, however, that this is a technical
reversal, based on the indefiniteness of the subject matter, and is not to be
construed as a reversal based on the prior art cited by the examiner.
The art rejection of claims 20-22 is reversed and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is hereby entered. Claims 20-22 includes elements, notably the
tub, the plug, and the plug and the neck, respectively, which lack antecedent basis.
This renders the claims indefinite.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013