Appeal No. 96-1808
Application 08/204,119
Schneider ‘716 test stand and washing the vessel while it is
in another position below the Schneider ‘716 rinsing stand, as
shown in figure 2 of Schneider ‘716. This interpretation of
“in situ” is consistent with the meaning given to that term by
appellants (brief, page 16). The examiner has not explained
why the applied references would have fairly suggested, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, the recited in situ capability.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has
not carried his burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the apparatus recited in appellants’ claims 49
and 50.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have
been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light
of appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.d.
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007