Appeal No. 1996-3814 Page 3
Application No. 08/348,835
OPINION
We refer to the appellants' briefs and to the answer and
supplement thereto for a complete exposition of the opposing
viewpoints expressed by the appellants and the examiner
concerning the above noted rejections. For the reasons which
follow, we cannot sustain either of 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 appellant's 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.2d 1232,
1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
In rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, the examiner (supplemental examiner's answer, page
3) urges that:
It is not clear what is meant by "detecting said
predetermined patterns to acquire information on a
position".... Applicant is apparently using the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007