Appeal No. 96-0153
Application No. 08/014,407
For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain any of
the rejections advanced by the examiner on this appeal.
However,
pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we will
make a new rejection of claims 5 and 6 under the fourth
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The section 112, second paragraph, rejection
On page 4 of the answer, the examiner expresses his
position concerning this rejection in the following manner:
The word "predetermined" is indefinite, in that it
does not specifically and distinctly claim a value
that is considered to be the invention. If one were
to select a "predetermined" value equal to "0" which
would meet the limitations of the claims, then there
would be no ammonia loading and therefore the claims
would be unclear. The use of the word
"predetermined" is taken to mean merely the
preselecting of a value.
It is well settled that the definiteness of claim
language must be analyzed, not under a vacuum but, always in
light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular
application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one
possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007