Appeal No. 96-2372
Application 08/278,676
obviousness is based on hindsight reconstruction of the claimed
invention from isolated disparate teachings in the prior art, we
are compelled to reverse the examiner's rejections of claims 1
through 3 and 5 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
However, in evaluating the application before us on
appeal it has become apparent that there are several issues which
require us to remand the application to the examiner for further
consideration.
The first of those issues relates to a question of the
adequacy of the disclosure of this application under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, and of the definiteness of the claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In particular,
we are concerned that there appears to be no description in the
specification concerning exactly what constitutes the various
"means" set forth in claims 1, 8, 11 and 22 on appeal. As an
example, while one skilled in this art may well perceive the
"means for displaying" of claims 1 and 22, the "means for
requesting" of claim 8, and the "further display means" of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007