Appeal No. 95-3565
Application 08/053,814
written description for the recited “multiresonant vibrator
having at least one electromechanical transducer having a
plurality of layers of independently electrically addressable
segments which receive signals from the controller.”
The legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim
reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. In
re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Upon reading the claims in light of the disclosure,
including that incorporated by reference, we find the claims
reasonably apprise those of skill in the art of their scope.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection.
(3) Anticipation
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that each
element of the claim in issue be found either expressly or
inherently in a single prior art reference. In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
The extent of the examiner’s explanation for the
anticipation rejection is as follows: “[c]laims 1-7, 11, and 19-
28 (as understood) rejected [sic] under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being clearly anticipated by Okumura, Okuno, Katani, JP (487).”
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007