Appeal No. 96-2298
Application 08/147,179
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner.3
As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of appellants’ claims
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.
In assessing the indefiniteness issue raised in this
appeal, we keep in mind the following principles. Relative to
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the
court in In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208
(CCPA 1970) stated that
[i]ts purpose is to provide those who would
endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach
the area circumscribed by the claims of a
patent, with the adequate notice demanded
by due process of law, so that they may
more readily and accurately determine the
boundaries of protection involved and
evaluate the possibility of infringement
In the brief (pages 6 through 8), appellants discuss an amendment3
after final rejection. This amendment was denied entry (Paper No. 9). Review
of the appropriateness of the denial of entry of an amendment is by way of
petition, not appeal. Thus, the content of the amendment is not before us, and
we will not address the substance of the aforementioned discussion by
appellants in the brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007