Appeal No. 2002-1689
Application No. 08/796,285 Page 3
March 23, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 26, filed August 16,
2001) for appellants' arguments thereagainst. Only those
arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered. See 37 CFR
1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of indefiniteness and
anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, appellant's arguments
set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the examiner's answer.
We begin with the rejection of claims 30-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
requires claims to set out and circumscribe a particular area
with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). In
making this determination, the definiteness of the language
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007