Appeal No. 95-4151
Application 08/158,342
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 21
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 or 112.
Analysis of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, should
begin with the determination of whether claims set out and
circumscribe a 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).
The Examiner argues that the language, "virtual display"
as recited in Appellants' claims is vague and indefinite
Appellants filed an appeal brief on February 24, 1995. We will refer2
to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants filed a reply appeal
brief on April 10, 1995. We will refer to this reply appeal brief as the
reply brief. The Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter mailed May 2, 1995
that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no further response
by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007