Appeal No. 96-2692
Application 08/310,892
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether Appellants’
claims set out and circumscribe the particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. We find
that Appellants’ claim language as recited in claims 1, 7 and
15 does not set out and circumscribe the particular area with
a reasonable degree of precision and particularity in that the
language sets forth "the
number of operations," "the minimum distance" and "buffer
memory requirements" without any antecedent basis in the
claims.
The Examiner also appears to argue that the whereby
clause is setting forth a function without the claim setting
forth sufficient structure to support the function. We remind
the Examiner that the claims before us are method claims and
not apparatus claims. Thus, in order to determine if the
claim is definite, we must determine if the method steps
recited in the claims can provide the functions recited in the
Appellants' whereby clause when viewed in light of Appellants'
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007