Appeal No. 95-3175
Application 08/124,361
necessary in Webb and concludes that it would have been obvious to calibrate the system in Webb to the
odometer so the system will receive an accurate indication of mileage.
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Webb, Eshelman, and
Juhasz.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires that a claim set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity when read in light of the disclosure
as it would be by the person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015,
194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
We agree with appellants' arguments (Brief, pages 3-4) that it is unclear from the examiner's
statement of the rejection in the Final Rejection exactly what the problem is with the term "calibration
system." In the response to argument section of the Examiner's Answer, the examiner explains the rejection
in more detail. The examiner apparently does not understand how the calibration system is "operable to
calibrate the computerized information processing system with an odometer of the vehicle,"
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007