Saturday, April 27, 2013

Indefiniteness rejection reversed

Ex parte Sharma

On 35 USC 112 P2

Despite the grammatically incorrect recitation of the word
“between,” the claim is sufficiently clear to obtain the proper construction,
which we conclude encompasses an agent that reports on resource
availability but is unaware of the contractual conditions related to the nodes.
(We do not comment on whether there is written description support for the
negative limitation or whether all the language of this claim should be given
patentable weight.) The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is
claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics,
Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citations omitted).


Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).


Post a Comment

<< Home