Appeal No. 97-2723
Application 08/320,091
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that claim 6 does not particularly point out the
invention in a manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112. We
are also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 2-7. Accordingly, we affirm-
in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claim 6 under the 2
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner’s rejection
states the following:
As per claim 6, the preamble is
misdescriptive because there is no
operating step in the body of the
claim. Furthermore, the claim appears
2We note that claim 7, which depends from claim 6, has
not been included in this rejection. Although this rejection
of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 would apply equally to claim
7, we limit our consideration to the rejection of claim 6
since that is the only claim rejected on this basis.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007