Ex parte ANDERSON - Page 8

          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            

                    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                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007