Appeal No. 2000-2115
Application No. 08/633,564
therefore conclude that the scope of the subject matter
embraced by appellant's claims on appeal is reasonably clear
and definite, and fulfills the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph. See, for example, pages 3 and 4, and
pages 8 and 9 of appellant's specification. Concerning the
examiner's additional comments relating to claim 2 on appeal,
we fail to see that the issues pointed to by the examiner in
any way create a problem under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. It is our opinion that when the questioned
language of claims 1 and 2 on appeal is read in light of
appellant's specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art, the skilled artisan would
reasonably understand the scope and content of appellant's
claims on appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
We next look to the examiner's prior art rejections of
appealed claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shea in view of Ito or Kawakatsu, and also
as being unpatentable over Shea considered in view of the APA
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007