Appeal No. 96-0366
Application No. 07/933,893
skill in the art to stand for “pieces.” Thus, appellants
contend that the density of projections is expressed in the
art using the term “pieces” and, in fact, the Sonoda reference
of record at column 7, line 11 also refers to this parameter
as “pieces.” In light of appellants’ arguments, we agree that
the claims on appeal are not rendered indefinite simply
because they use the abbreviation “pcs” for a term that is
understood in the art. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph.
In summary, the rejection of the appealed claims for
obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) is affirmed. However, we
denominate our affirmance as involving a new rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b). The rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007