Appeal No. 1996-3042
Application 08/293,153
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner argues that it is unclear what process step
is being recited in having air pass twice over the lights
(answer page 3). That step is the step in the independent
claim of “drawing the air through a sterilization chamber . .
. such that the air passes the light bulb twice”. The
examiner has not explained why 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, fails to
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree
of precision and particularity. The rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, therefore, is reversed.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Regarding enablement, a predecessor of our appellate
reviewing court stated in In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-
24, 169 USPQ 367, 369-70 (CCPA 1971):
[A] specification disclosure which contains a
teaching of the manner and process of making and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007