Appeal No. 95-1195
Application No. 08/102,674
and determine if it is a precision part or a generic part.
Likewise, there is no disclosure of what constitutes
significant distortion and what constitutes insignificant
distortion" (page 9 of Answer). Here, we also agree with
appellant that when the criticized claim language is read in
light of the specification by one of ordinary skill in the
art, there is sufficient description in the specification to
allow the skilled artisan to reasonably ascertain the metes
and bounds of the claimed terms "precision" and "significant."
In essence, we agree with appellant's argument stated at page
6, second paragraph, of the principal Brief.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007