Application of Edgar Siegel and Klaus Sasse

SMITH, Judge.

Two issues are before this court in this appeal: (1) whether the appealed claims are so “unduly broad and indefinite” as to constitute a failure to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph; and (2) whether the appealed claims are obvious in view of the prior art of record within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Those issues arise in an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals 1 affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 48 and 51 of appellants’ application. 2 Claims 22-24, 26-31 and 35-38 were allowed by the examiner.

Appellants’ invention relates to…