Appeal 2007-2236
Application 10/991,738
1 E. Discussion
2 (1)
3 Indefiniteness
4 A claim which is indefinite is not patentable. 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
5 paragraph.
6 We have considerable difficulty understanding the meaning of
7 claim 89—from which all other claims depend.
8 Accordingly, we reject claims 89-96 as being unpatentable under
9 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point and
10 distinctly claim an invention.
11 The first problem we encounter is that the "article" comprises (1) a
12 surface and (2) a solution. What is described in Fig. 1 and elsewhere in the
13 specification is an article comprising (1) surface and (2) a superconductive
14 layer 14. How an article comprises a surface and a solution coated on a
15 surface is not at all clear to us.
16 The second problem we encounter is that on the one hand the solution
17 includes "a fluorinated carboxylate salt of an alkaline earth metal" and on
18 the other hand mentions a process step "to form a barium fluoride containing
19 coating …" To be sure, barium is an alkaline earth metal. But, so are other
20 elements and the specification reveals that the other can be alkaline earth
21 metals, such as strontium or calcium. Publication ¶ 0048. How one starts
22 with strontium or calcium and ends up with barium is not entirely apparent.
23 The third problem relates to the limitation "wherein the solution is
24 capable of being processed …" In this case, it is not clear to us what this
25 process limitation has to do with the claimed article. What difference would
26 the processing time make with respect to the claimed "article"? In other
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013