Appeal No. 97-1882 Page 4
Application No. 08/316,957
mailed November 29, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the appellants' brief (Paper
No. 12, filed November 18, 1996) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to
3, 5, 11, 12, 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellants regard
as the invention.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007