Appeal No. 97-3294
Application 08/408,225
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully con-
sidered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied 3
patent, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the4
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
3We understand the recitation of “apparatus” in dependent
claims 2 through 5 and claims 15 and 16 to correspond to the
“combination” of respective parent claims 1 and 14. The noted
language should be made consistent during any further prosecu-
tion before the examiner.
4In our evaluation of the applied patent, we have consid-
ered all of the disclosure thereof for what it would have
fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966). Addi-
tionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007