Appeal No. 94-4377
Application 07/789,738
teachings. As noted by the court in In re Moore, 439 F.2d at
1235, footnote 2, 169 USPQ at 238, footnote 2,
[i]t is important here to understand that under this
analysis claims which on first reading - in a vacuum, if you
will - appear indefinite may upon a reading of the
specification disclosure or prior art teachings become quite
definite.
Here, we know of no reason, and none has been provided by
the examiner, as to why one of ordinary skill in the art, upon
reading the appellants’ specification, would have found the
claimed subject matter indefinite. Accordingly, the rejection is
reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
TEDDY S. GRON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOAN ELLIS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007