Appeal No. 97-2174
Application No. 08/214,763
Claims 1 through 24 stand rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellants regard as their invention.
Claims 1 through 24 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Moris and the Japanese
reference.
We will not sustain either of these rejections.
Concerning the section 112, second paragraph, rejection,
the examiner believes that the recitation “so quickly” renders
the appealed claims indefinite. This belief is clearly
erroneous with respect to independent claim 24 since this
claim does not contain the aforementioned recitation. The
rejection is also inappropriate with respect to the other
claims on appeal. As correctly indicated by the appellants in
the brief, the phrase in question would have been reasonably
understood by those with ordinary skill in the art
particularly in light of the disclosure in the paragraph
bridging pages 9 and 10 of the subject specification. That
is, the claim 1 phrase “so quickly” is interpreted with
respect to the prevention of “reproducible dosing”, and the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007