Appeal No. 1996-3042
Application 08/293,153
and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not
described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to
enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same,
and/or for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which appellants regard as their
invention. The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows: claims 1-3 and 7-9 over Sievers in view of Nelson;
claims 4 and 5 over Sievers in view of Nelson and Minto; and
claim 6 over Sievers in view of Nelson, Minto and appellants’
acknowledged prior art on pages 8 and 9 of the specification.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007