Appeal No. 98-2456
Application No. 08/748,158
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 10, 14, 23, 24, 27 and 28 before us on
appeal. Our reasons follow.
After reviewing appellant’s specification and claims, and
appellant’s arguments in the brief and reply brief, it is our
opinion that the scope and content of the subject matter
embraced by appellant’s claims on appeal are reasonably clear
and definite, and fulfill the basic requirement of 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, that they provide those who would
endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area
circumscribed by the claims, with the adequate notice demanded
by due process of law, so that they may more readily and
accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and
evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance. See
In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007