Earlier this week I blogged about Ex parte Sewald, which involved an indefiniteness rejection of "constructed in CMOS." My post stated that I disagreed with the Board's affirmation of indefiniteness rejection.
After talking with a number of folks about this post – including commenters on this blog – I've changed my mind. I now agree that the rejection was proper. But I still the case is interesting, for another reason: would a claim to a "microelectronic" embodiment be better than the CMOS claim, and if so, how to draft a claim to capture that.
I've updated my post to reflect my new thinking. The updated post is available at the original link (here).
No comments:
Post a Comment