Appeal No. 95-2440
Application 07/705,726
art. See, e.g., appellants' entire specification and brief,
pages 26-28. We are constrained to reversed this rejection.
The examiner has also rejected claims 87, 97 and 98 as
being indefinite for reciting "appreciable intensity". We
shall not sustain this rejection.
Although we agree with the examiner that the
specification does not provide a specific definition for
"appreciable intensity", it is our view that one skilled in
the pertinent art would know what is meant by "appreciable
intensity" in view of the general guidelines contained in the
disclosure, see, e.g., In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 565, 184
USPQ 484, 486-87 (CCPA 1975). This is especially true in the
present situation since the claims limit the meaning of
"appreciable intensity" to the particular function which is to
be achieved, i.e., inducing diffusion. See In re Halleck, 422
F.2d 911, 164 USPQ 647 (CCPA 1970); Ex parte Skuballa, 12
USPQ2d 1570 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
Further, the examiner has rejected claims 75 and 83 as
being indefinite for reciting "in turn". We shall sustain
this rejection. Although the phrase "in turn" itself is
definite, the context in which it is used in the claims
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007