Appeal No. 1997-0189
Application No. 07/983,118
specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing,
Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In response to the Examiner’s stated position, Appellant
argues (Brief, pages 17 and 18) the clear difference between
the claimed "windows" and "pixels" when read in light of the
specification. As asserted by Appellant, the specification
sets forth a description of a "window" as a structural
element, the opening and closing of which allows a quantity of
light to be passed through, which quantity of light is termed
a "pixel." After reviewing the arguments of record, we
agree with Appellant that the artisan having considered the
specification of this application would have no difficulty
ascertaining the scope of the invention recited in claims 34-
43, 50, and 51. We further note that Appellant correctly
points out at page 17 of the Brief that the amendment after
final filed October 10, 1995, which was entered by the
Examiner, corrected the lack of antecedent basis problem at
lines 33 and 34 of claim 34. Therefore, the rejection of
claims 34-43, 50, and 51 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
We now consider the rejection of independent claims 34,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007