Appeal No. 1998-1096
Application No. 08/415,399
In addition, it is our opinion that the disclosure of Cannella
does not fully meet the invention as recited in claims 5 and
6, nor does the disclosure of Sugawara meet the recited
invention in claims 8-10. Finally, we are of the conclusion
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claim 7. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
rejection of claims 8-10, we note that the general rule is
that a claim must set out and circumscribe a particular area
with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity when
read in light of the disclosure as it would be by the artisan.
In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA
1971). Acceptability of the claim language depends on whether
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is
claimed in light of the specification. Seattle Box Co. v.
Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221
USPQ 568,
573-4 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Examiner questions the antecedent reference for the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007