Appeal No. 95-3673
Application 07/935,762
of the exact same language for an antecedent basis to be clear to
the artisan. The use of the pronoun “itself” clearly in a normal
grammatical sense refers back to the structural recitation of the
electronic circuit means. Thus, from an artisan’s perspective
all of the claims on appeal recite the claimed invention 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.
As such, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 to 22 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Turning lastly to the rejection of all claims on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we reverse the two recited rejections on
this statutory basis. Initially, we consider the obviousness of
claim 1 in light of the teachings and suggestions of Bruggemann
alone.
At the outset, we see no patentable distinction within 35
U.S.C. § 103 by the mere use of the recitation in each
independent claim on appeal of an electromechanical meter
movement operating a pointer against a scale of values. Such are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007