Appeal No. 1998-1096
Application No. 08/415,399
language “and spaced from said walls . . . ” in dependent
claim 8, from which claims 9 and 10 further depend. After
considering Appellants’ response, we agree with Appellants
that no ambiguity or lack of clarity exists in the claim
recitation. In our view, it is apparent from Appellants’
specification and Figure 5 of the drawing that the intended
reference is to the integrated circuits since the thermal
neutron absorber is included on the inside of the container
walls and not spaced therefrom as are the integrated circuits.
From the above discussion, it is our opinion that the skilled
artisan, having considered the specification in its entirety,
would have no difficulty ascertaining the scope of the
invention recited in dependent claims 8-10. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 8-10 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
We next consider the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cannella.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007