Appeal No. 1997-4354
Application 08/177,296
A summary of Diefendorff’s teaching appears at column 5,
lines 9-31, of the patent.
Opinion
We will consider the rejection under the second paragraph of
§ 112 first. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
(CCPA 1971).
The inquiry to be made concerning the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 is to determine whether the claims set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision, and particularly when read by the artisan in light of
the disclosure and the relevant prior art. In re Moore, supra.
The examiner’s position is to the effect that appellants’ use of
the term “permitting” before each function of the sole independent
claim 15
of the group consisting of claims 15-21 renders the claims
indefinite because no function actually occurs.
We are not persuaded by the examiner’s position. It is
evident that the term “permitting” followed by a function in each
instance defines what property or capability each subprocess of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007