Appeal No. 2004-0893
Application No. 09/124,310 Page 4
OPINION
Upon consideration of the respective positions advanced by
appellants and the examiner with respect to the rejections that
are before us for review, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellants’ position in that the examiner has failed to carry the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of indefiniteness, lack
of descriptive support, anticipation or obviousness.
Accordingly, we will not sustain any of the examiner’s stated
rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have been
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of
appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232,
1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner’s concern is with an alleged ambiguity in
appellants’ use of the terms “towbar head” and “towbar-guided
industrial truck.” According to the examiner, the structure
referred to by those terms is not determinable because “the
specification does not clearly redefine these terms” (answer,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007