Ex parte MATTHEW A. HOWARD et al. - Page 4

          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).                                 

          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:            


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007