Appeal No. 2005-0166
Application 09/789,872
we see no reason why the artisan would have any difficulty
practicing the claimed invention. The description of Figure 2 in
the specification adequately explains how to make and use the
claimed invention.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-48 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. With respect to each of the
independent claims, the examiner appears to assert that the
claimed correlation step does not generate statistical
distribution data so that it does not generate a first
manufacturing metric distribution as claimed [answer, pages 5-
13].
Appellants argue that the use of the term correlate in
the claimed invention is consistent with its general meaning
[brief, pages 5-7]. The examiner responds that Figure 2 of the
application does not depict correlating the manufacturing
characteristic data with a first manufacturing metric as claimed
[answer, pages 17-18].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the
claims under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The
general rule is that a claim must set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity when read in light of the disclosure as it would be
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007