Appeal No. 1007-0016
Application No. 08/162,333
the invention as claimed and, accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 13-16, and 18-22 under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
The rejection of claims 11, 13-16, and 18-22
as being indefinite under the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The Examiner’s basis for this rejection apparently stems
from the same alleged deficiency that gave root to the 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection discussed above. In
the Examiner’s view, the lack of support for claim language
which sets forth the receipt of edge region signals by a high
frequency filter raises a question as to the clarity of the
claims.
The general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007