Appeal No. 95-2576
Application 07/962,952
being unpatentable over Groves and Schinabeck.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the 2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6, 8, 9 and
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as well as the
rejection of claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Analysis of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, should begin
with the determination of whether claims set out and circumscribe
the particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity; it is here where definiteness of the language must
be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of teachings of
the disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing
ordinary skill in the art. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015,
194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977), citing In re Moore, 439 F. 2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (1971). Furthermore, our
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 20, 1994. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants
filed a reply appeal brief on March 9, 1995. We will refer to
this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner
responded to the reply brief with a letter, mailed April 20,
1995, stating that the reply brief has been entered and
considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed
necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007