Appeal No. 2000-0209 Page 11
Application No. 08/693,985
the time the invention was made . . . to occupy the mind of
one skilled in the art who is presented only with the
references, and who is normally guided by the then-accepted
wisdom in the art." Id. Since the claimed subject matter as
a whole is not taught or suggested by the applied prior art,
we will not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, and of
dependent claims 2 to 5, 8 to 10 and 12. 1
The indefiniteness rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3/2, 4 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph but not the rejection of
claim 10.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims
to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re
1We have also reviewed the references additionally
applied in the rejection of claims 2, 3/2, 4, 5, 8 to 10 and
12 (i.e., Masser, Brandt, Baxter and Raidel) but find nothing
therein which makes up for the deficiencies of Snyder and
Hayes discussed above.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007