Appeal No. 96-1729
Application No. 08/165,795
a multi-bit) multi-pixel cell. Moreover, as to the integer
determination in dependent claim 6, it is clear that this
discussion would have been readily understood by the artisan
as explained at pages 17 and 18 of the specification as filed.
It is the deriving step at the end of independent claim 4 that
is further explained according to the formula recited in
dependent claim 6 which is consistent with this just mentioned
discussion.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that it would have
been necessary for the artisan to exercise only a routine
measure of experimentation to make and use the claimed
invention as set forth in dependent claims 5 through 8.
Additionally, since the subject matter of these claims is
directly consistent with and somewhat mirrors the actual
language of the disclosure in the earlier noted portions of
the specification as filed, appellant’s claims can not be
fairly said to be indefinite. It is apparent to us that the
appellant is particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming
what he regards as his invention as required by the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 such as to give adequate notice
to the artisan and the public what the metes and bounds of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007