Appeal No. 1997-3392
Application 08/297,946
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-15 and 17-
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellants
regard as the invention, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, enablement and written description requirements,
claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Sacripante, and claims 1-4, 7-15, 17-22, 29 and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have
been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out
and circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007