Appeal No. 96-0978
Application 08/110,324
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions advanced
by the appellants in the substitute brief and by the examiner in
the answer. As a consequence of this review, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We will not,
however, sustain the rejections of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Considering first the rejection of claim 2 under the second
paragraph of § 112, the examiner is of the opinion that this
claim is indefinite because “the trailing edge” lacks an
antecedent basis. We will not support the examiner’s position.
Initially, we note that the purpose of the second paragraph
of Section 112 is to basically insure, with a reasonable degree
of particularity, an adequate notification of the metes and
bounds of what is being claimed. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d
1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). When viewed in light
of this authority, we cannot agree with the examiner that the
metes and bounds of claim 2 cannot be determined because of the
list of alleged deficiencies noted by the examiner. A degree of
reasonableness is necessary. As the court stated in In re Moore,
439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971), the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007