Appeal No. 96-2274
Application No. 08/291,354
this challenge. We note that the Examiner has not provided
any reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of the
disclosure. Furthermore, without any basis provided by the
Examiner, we do find that one of ordinary skill in the art
with only routine
experimentation would have been able to make and use a system
that has the capability to separately measure the transmitted
and received signals to obtain the phase difference between
these signals. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Claims 18 through 21, 25 and 27 through 30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which appellants regard as their invention. Analysis
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, should begin with the
determination of whether claims set out and circumscribe the
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity; it is here where definiteness of the language
must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of
teachings of the disclosure as it would be interpreted by one
possessing ordinary skill in the art. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007