Appeal No. 95-5020
Application 08/151,041
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for2
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claims 53 and 54 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In
addition, we do not agree with the Examiner that claims 36,
37, 42, 46, 47, 52 and 55 are properly rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by McFerrin or that claim 56
is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over McFerrin.
Analysis of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, should
begin with the determination of whether the claims set out and
circum-scribe the particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. It is here where definiteness of
the language must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in
light of the teachings of the disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing ordinary skill in the art. In
Appellant filed an appeal brief on May 15, 1995. Appellant filed a2
reply appeal brief on August 29, 1995. The Examiner stated in the Examiner’s
letter mailed November 2, 1995 that the reply brief has been entered and
considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007