Appeal 2007-0114
Application 10/990,960
(N) output values, it is within the scope of the invention to use
alternative and additional output values, making prediction based on
those output values being the same or, more broadly, being
substantially the same. Any combination known to one of ordinary
skill in the art is feasible and is intended to be within the claim scope.
For instance, the neutral output values may be further classified into
additional output values such that a high neutral output value can
factor into a counting of buy output values. Such an example and
usage of the terminology is understood by one of ordinary skill and
find support in the specification, MPEP, and the case law.
Reply Br. 5.
C. Principles of Law
1. The test for compliance is whether the claims set out and circumscribe
a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity when
read in light of the application disclosure as they would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169
USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
D. Analysis
We are not persuaded that Appellants have shown error in the
rejection.
Appellants argue that “substantially” is a broad term which has been
found to be definite. FF 3. There is no dispute that “substantially” is a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013