Appeal No. 1998-1778 Page 7
Application No. 08/521,358
considered by us to be definite, as required by the second
paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112. Moreover, in this case, we fail to see how
the examiner's determination that claims 12 and 13 were not
readable on any original drawing figure, raised an issue of
indefiniteness. In any event, it is our determination that5
claims 1, 12 and 13 are readable on original Figure 3 and
newly presented Figure 3A.
The obviousness issues
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 9, 23, 25,
26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
5We can see how such a determination might raise a
written description issue under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112. It is our view that the subject matter of
claims 12 and 13 does have written description support in the
original disclosure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007