Appeal No. 1997-0897
Application No. 08/227,992 Page 9
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the
metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner asserts (answer, page 5) that claim 1 is
incomplete because the claim recites a first transparent
covering, which implies additional transparent coverings, but
that no additional transparent coverings are recited. Appellants
point out (brief, page 23) that the second transparent covering
is recited in claim 2, which depends from claim 1.
From our review of the claims, we find that claim 1 does not
require additional transparent coverings, and that the metes and
bounds of the claim would have been readily understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art for the reasons set forth by appellants
in the brief. We make similar findings with respect to claims 3,
4, 20, and 21 for the same reasons.
The examiner further asserts (answer, page 5) that claims 2,
5, 15, 22, and 27 recite improper negative limitations e.g.,
“said first transparent covering is removed . . . and replaced”
(claim 2, lines 3-5). The examiner asserts (answer, page 13)
that “The rejection is made because an essential element of the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007