Appeal No. 95-3017
Application 07/952,061
which, as indicated earlier, is an objected to claim. As such,
the claims at issue under 35 U.S.C. § 103 remain claims 7 to 12,
19 to 24 and 26 to 31. There is no outstanding rejection under
any statutory basis as to the objected to claims 13 and 14.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1 to 12, 15 to 25
and 28 to 31 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, it is
to be noted that to comply with the requirements of the cited
paragraph, 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 and the teachings of the prior
art as it would be by the artisan. Note In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977); In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
We have reviewed and considered the examiner’s reasons in
support of the rejection, but are not convinced that the cited
claims fail to comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007