Appeal 2007-1603
Application 10/036,356
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed November 2, 2006) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed
November 9, 2005 ) and Reply Brief (filed December 27, 2006) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellants’ Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellants and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
At the outset, we note that claims 26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 37, 41, and 44
have been designated by Appellants as dependent claims depending
indirectly from independent claim 17. We find that independent claim 17 is
a method claim and each of the above claims is directed to a different
statutory class of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We question how these
claims can be denominated as dependent claims wherein they do not further
limit the parent independent claimed method. Therefore, we view these
claims as improper and find it difficult to determine the metes and bounds of
each claimed invention. Additionally, we note that claim 36 depends from
canceled claim 28.
Additionally, we note that numerous claims contain a single means
plus function limitation wherein the Brief does not contain a Summary of
Claimed Subject matter for each of the means plus function limitations as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013