Appeal No. 96-0215
Application 07/975,908
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton, Jr.
Claims 2 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Shelton, Jr. and Tsujiuchi.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2 through 5 and
10 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 or 112.
Analysis of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, should
begin with the determination of whether claims set out and
circumscribe a 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 teachings of the disclosure as it would be interpreted by one
possessing ordinary skill in the art. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
The Examiner argues that the language, "a filter for
decoding the data to be detected" in claim 10 is vague and
indefinite because it is not clear how a filter performs a
function of decoding the data. The Examiner argues that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007