Appeal No. 1998-2777
Application 08/477,226
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, we note that we see nothing indefinite about appellants’ use of the language “seeding with
cells” as set forth in independent claims 1 and 16 on appeal. The examiner’s statement (answer, pages
3-4) that the recitations of claims 1 and 16 are “indefinite in that it is unclear whether or not ‘seeding
with cells’ should be set-off” is not otherwise explained by the examiner and is simply not understood.
Exactly what action the examiner seeks on appellants’ part is not clear and exactly what the examiner
means by “set-off” is likewise unclear. As for the examiner’s concern that the scope of claim 1 on
appeal is not commensurate with the preamble of claim 1, we understand from appellants’ disclosure as
a whole that a “device” formed in accordance with the method set forth in claim 1 comprises a matrix
structure like that defined in the body of claim 1. Thus, we are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill
in the art would readily recognize that the device set forth in the preamble of claim 1 is comprised of the
matrix as defined in the body of the claim, and that the method of claim 1 on appeal thus defines
appellants’ invention with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity adequate to satisfy the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007