Appeal No. 97-0690
Application No. 08/375,094
so that they may more readily and accurately determine the
boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility
of infringement and dominance. See, In re Hammack, 427 F.2d
1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). Like appellant, we view the
examiner’s criticism of the language in the last clause of
claim 1 and the penultimate clause of claim 15, in reality, to
be an issue of claim breadth and not an issue of indefiniteness
of the claim language. Thus, contrary to the examiner’s
position, we find that independent claims 1 and 15 on appeal do
particularly point out and distinctly claim that which appellant
regards as his invention and are definite within the meaning of
the Statute. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of appellant’s claims 1
through 10 and 15 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
We next look to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Lockwood.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007