Appeal No. 96-0022
Application 08/096,214
positions, reference is made to appellants' brief (Paper No. 29)
and appellants' reply brief (Paper No. 31).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in
this appeal, we have carefully considered appellants'
specification and claims, the applied reference, and the
respective viewpoints advanced by the appellants and the
examiner. These considerations lead us to make the
determinations which follow.
With regard to the examiner's rejection of claim 43
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, 208 (CCPA 1970). The inquiry as stated in In
re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971) is:
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007