Appeal No. 95-3781
Application 07/978,223
positions, reference is made to appellant's brief (Paper No.
13) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15) for the full
exposition thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in
this appeal, we have carefully considered appellant's
specification and claims, the applied references and the
respective viewpoints advanced by the appellant and the
examiner. These considerations lead us to make the
determinations which follow.
With regard to the examiner's rejection of claims 6
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we initially
note that the purpose of the requirement stated in the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is to provide those who would
endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area as
circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate
notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more
readily and adequately determine the boundaries of protection
involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and
dominance. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007