Appeal 2007-1762
Application 10/218,245
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as
their invention.
Claims 19-23, 25-33, 35-38, and 40-43
Regarding independent claims 19, 25, 35, and 40, none of these
claims recite a structural environment in which the claimed displaying step
may occur, rendering the claims indefinite. Dependent claims 20-23, 26-33,
36-38, and 41-43 fail to remedy the deficiencies of independent claims 19,
25, 35 and 40, respectively. Therefore, we conclude that claims 19-23, 25-
33, 35-38, and 40-43 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph.
Claims 44, 45, and 47
Regarding independent claim 44, we find there is no clear antecedent
basis for the claimed means. Therefore, there is no structural environment in
which the claim may occur, rendering the claim indefinite. Dependent
claims 45 and 47 fail to remedy this deficiency. Therefore, we conclude that
claims 44, 45, and 47 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph.
DECISION
We have reversed the Examiner’s rejections of all claims on appeal.
Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 2, 8, 19-23, 25-33,
35-38, 40-45, and 47 is reversed. 7
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we have entered new grounds of
rejection against claims 2, 8 and 44 (rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101) and
7 To consolidate the issues on appeal, Appellants have withdrawn claim 14
from consideration in this appeal (Br. 4). See Footnote 1.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013