Appeal No. 95-3673
Application 07/935,762
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 to 22, which constitute all the
claims in the application.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Bruggemann 4,701,867 Oct. 20, 1987
Burke et al. (Burke) 4,803,646 Feb. 07, 1989
Claims 1 to 22 stand rejected under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 as being vague and indefinite. Claims 1 to 22
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Bruggemann as to claims 1
to 8, with the addition of Burke as to claims 9 to 22.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1 to 22 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, it is to be noted that to
comply with the requirements of the cited paragraph, a claim must
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure and the teachings of the prior art as it would be by
the artisan. Note In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007