Appeal No. 97-3082
Application No. 08/650,023
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cave.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
Turning first to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, the examiner contends that the claim
language regarding “feedback” is a “negative limitation” and,
therefore, indefinite. At page 4 of the answer, the examiner
contends that there “must be support in the specification for
the language recited in the claims” and that nowhere “is there
anything disclosed in the specification that would set forth
this limitation.” The examiner deems claims 1 and 4 “to be
inconsistent with the description in the specification.”
As both appellant and the examiner understand, a
“negative limitation” in a claim, does not, per se, make the
claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The
examiner’s complaint about a lack of “support” in the
specification sounds more like a problem under the written
description section of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007