Appeal No. 95-2976
Application No. 08/041,077
In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA
1971). On this record, the examiner has not so analyzed the
language of the appealed claims and thus has not carried his
burden of establishing a prima facie case of indefiniteness.
For example, the examiner has advanced utterly no rationale,
and we discern none
independently, for his position that claim terms such as
"degradable", "organic" and/or "polymeric" are indefinite
terms. It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's
section 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 4, 6 and 8
through 10. However, we will sustain the section 102(b)
rejection of claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 15 and 16 as being
anticipated by Renner. This is because we perceive no
distinction in process claim 4 or material claim 16 relative
to the process and material described in the Renner patent
particularly at lines 4 through 16 in the right hand column on
page 2. Specifically, the solid shaped treatment article of
claim 4 and the material of claim 16 appear to be
indistinguishable from the solid shape described on page 2 of
Renner.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007