Appeal No. 1998-2308
Application No. 08/379,868
skilled in the art of the scope of the invention. Hybritech Inc. v.
Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the examiner has taken the position that the terms “low”
and “high” appearing in appealed claims 12 and 14, respectively, are
relative terms which lack “basis for comparison.” (Examiner’s
answer, pages 4 and 18.) However, the examiner has not adequately
explained on this record why appealed claims 12 and 14, given the
specification description at pages 6-7, do not reasonably apprise
those skilled in the relevant art of the scope of the invention
recited in these claims.
Accordingly, we cannot uphold the examiner’s rejection of
appealed claims 12 and 14 on this ground.
Rejections II and III
Claims 1 through 9 and 15 through 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kügler in view of Scobey. Further,
claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kügler in view of Scobey, as applied to claims 1 through 9 and
15 through 19, and further in view of Latz.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007