Appeal No. 1999-2089 Page 4
Application No. 08/517,181
mailed November 6, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 11,
filed October 8, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed
December 10, 1998) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims
to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007