Ex parte BROWN - Page 10




          Appeal No. 95-1955                                                          
          Application 08/109,982                                                      

          In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA                 
          1977).                                                                      
               The only reason articulated by the examiner in support of              
          the indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C.  112, second                  
          paragraph, is that the claims as recited are without adequate               
          written description in the specification under 35 U.S.C.  112,             
          first paragraph.  See examiner's answer at page 3.                          
               Even assuming that the claims are without written                      
          description support in the specification, that does not establish           
          that the appellant has failed to particularly point out the                 
          subject matter which she regards as the invention.  The examiner            
          does not assert and has no reasonable basis to assert that one              
          with ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the claims, would              
          not know the scope of the claimed invention or what has been                
          claimed.  The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.  112,           
          first paragraph, and the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C.              
           112, second paragraph, have entirely different purposes and are           
          independent of each other.  In any event, we have also found                
          above that the rejection of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C.  112,             
          first paragraph, as being without adequate written description              
          support in the specification cannot be sustained.                           
               Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 10-12           


                                         -10-                                         





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007