Ex Parte Chen et al - Page 5

                Appeal 2007-1067                                                                             
                Application 10/108,793                                                                       

                      the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that                            
                      they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries                          
                      of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of                                 
                      infringement and dominance.                                                            
                      In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA                            
                1970).                                                                                       
                      Here, the claimed requirement for a copolymer after neutralization                     
                having Atti Compression less than a claimed formula and a Coefficient of                     
                Restitution value within a specified range for the neat copolymer renders the                
                scope of the claims indefinite in that the Atti Compression and Coefficient                  
                of Restitution values are, by definition, measurements of the properties of a                
                particular ball or sphere, not the measure of a copolymer property per se, as                
                claimed.  See, e.g., Specification, pp. 12 and 13.  Thus, the scope of the                   
                claims is unclear.  In this regard, it is not clear how one of ordinary skill in             
                the art could determine whether a particular E/X/Y copolymer has a unique                    
                Atti Compression and a unique Coefficient of Restitution for the copolymer                   
                itself, rather than for a particular ball made from such a copolymer, such that              
                a comparison with the specified formula and range, respectively, for these                   
                parameters could be made.2                                                                   

                                                                                                            
                2 Prior to final disposition of this application, the Examiner should review                 
                the claims of copending application No. 10/230,015 and determine whether                     
                an obviousness-type double patenting rejection is in order.  Also, the                       
                Examiner should seek to resolve any inconsistency between the description                    
                of the Atti Compression testing of the Examples as described in this                         
                application with the Atti Compression testing description in the copending                   
                child application.  As an additional matter, the Examiner should review the                  
                Specification, as filed, to determine whether there is any direction therein for             
                specifying an Atti Compression by the formula, specified in the appealed                     
                claims.  In this regard, merely because two points define a line does not                    
                                                     5                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013