Appeal No. 98-1456 Page 6
Application No. 08/294,958
(see Paper No. 15), the examiner did not specifically withdraw
the above-noted rejections. Accordingly, those rejections are
still before us on this appeal.
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Clearly the
language presently used in claims 1 and 9 is definite, as
required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (see In re
Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976)),
since the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are
defined with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain any of the examiner's rejections of
claims 1, 3, 6 and 8 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our
conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007