Ex parte DOUCHE et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1996-2972                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 07/928,784                                                  


          examiner concerning the above noted rejections.  For the                    
          reasons which follow, we cannot sustain the examiner's stated               
           112, second paragraph, rejection as applied to claims 1, 6                
          and 16 and the examiner's  103 rejection as expressed in the               
          answer.  However, we shall summarily sustain the examiner's                 
          112, second paragraph rejection as it separately pertains to               
          claims 3-5, 13-15, and 17. An explanation follows.                          
                 Rejection under 35 U.S.C.  112, second paragraph                    
               The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C.  112, second                     
          paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have                  
          been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light               
          of appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and                
          circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of                 
          precision and particularity.  See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232,               
          1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).                                        
               In rejecting the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C.  112,                
          second paragraph, the examiner (answer, page 3) urges that the              
          language of the fourth paragraph of claim 1 is indefinite "in               
          that the use of the term 'may' renders the claims unclear...."              
          At page 7 of the answer, the examiner further explains that                 








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007