Appeal 2007-2980
Application 10/396,649
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s objection to the Specification
under 35 U.S.C. § 132.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In some instances, it is possible to make a reasonable, conditional
interpretation of claims adequate for the purpose of resolving patentability
issues to avoid piecemeal appellate review. In the interest of administrative
and judicial economy, this course is appropriate wherever reasonably
possible. See Ex parte Saceman, 27 USPQ2d 1472, 1474 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 1993); Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984). In other
instances, however, it may be impossible to determine whether or not
claimed subject matter is anticipated by or would have been obvious over
references because the claims are so indefinite that considerable speculation
and assumptions would be required regarding the meaning of terms
employed in the claims with respect to the scope of the claims. See In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). For the
reasons set forth above the Appellants’ claims are sufficiently indefinite that
application of the prior art to the claims is not possible.
The Appellant argues that “the horizontal lines which extend from an
apex of a peak (or are clipped to a percentage thereof) and then pass through
a subsequent peak are for reference only to define the biased origin for
measurement of subsequent peaks” (Br. 9). Feser’s statement that “[t]he
CPF term exclusively supplies a contribution to the threshold when the level
of the minimum Am2 occurring later in time is greater than the level of the
minimum Am1 earlier in time” (col. 8, ll. 53-56) indicates that a crash pulse
energy term (CPF) is increased when Am2 exceeds the horizontal line
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013