Appeal No. 1998-0139
Application No. 08/503,320
Kato et al. (Kato) 5,030,512 Jul. 9, 1991
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner entered the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kato.
(Examiner’s Answer, page 3).
Claims 1-20 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and claim the subject
matter which appellants regards as the invention. (Examiner’s Answer, page 4).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support
of their respective positions.
A. The Rejection under Section 112, ¶2
The Examiner must demonstrate that the claims do not “set out and circumscribe
a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.” In re Moore,
439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007