Appeal No. 2001-0644
Application No. 09/250,204
In view of the above, we conclude that claims 52-113 do
define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
Conclusion
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. MCQUADE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LJS:hh
example, page 6, lines 4-5 (“ . . . here appellant [sic] has not
disclosed how to specifically make the invention.”), and page 6, lines
10-13 (“The claims are rejected because when one of ordinary skill in
the art looks to the specification to determine the scope of the
claims, there is nothing there to specifically describe how to make
appellants [sic, appellants’] claimed vapor permeable backsheet.”).
However, no rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
currently before for review.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007