Appeal No. 96-2528
Application 08/011,202
region 1, what the meaning of a multiplicity of n has in the
context of a structural or functional distinction is not fully
explained in the specification as filed.
Appellants’ position at page 6 of the brief indicates
that they consider the elemental channel regions to be regions
A-I shown in Figure 2. The specification does not so indicate
that these regions labeled A-I are elemental channel regions.
They are only described as being nine bound states according
to the discussion beginning at page 8, line 6 of the
specification. A viewer’s characterization of the claimed
elemental channel regions conforms to ABFC; ABIE; ADGC and
ADHE, but the specification does not discuss the claimed
elemental channel regions in this manner. In any event, this
characterization meets the claim limitation of each of the
elemental channel regions surrounding each of the forbidden
regions 2 in Figure 2. In any event, since these noted
ambiguities have not been cured by any feature recited in
dependent claims 2-4, they are correctly included in this
rejection. As such, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed.
Turning lastly to the rejection of claims 1-4 under
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007