Appeal No. 96-1920
Application 08/218,136
We will not sustain this rejection because the
examiner has offered no explanation as to why the claims are
indefinite within the meaning of the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112. The examiner states that this rejection is made
for the same reasons as the rejection under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, but we see no basis for using the alleged nonenablement
of the disclosure to reject claims as being indefinite.
Nevertheless, we agree with appellant that the artisan having
considered the specification of this application would have no
difficulty ascertaining the scope of the invention recited in
claims 8-12. Therefore, we do not sustain this rejection of
claims 8-12.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5-7
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Furukawa. Anticipation is established only when
a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of
performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007