Appeal No. 1996-3491
Application 08/213,347
We will not sustain this rejection. The “definiteness of
the language employed must be analyzed-not in a vacuum, but
always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted
by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent
art.” In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
(CCPA 1971). Appellants have provided ample guidance on pages
8-13 of their specification for determining the “predetermined
value” for the temperature differential )T. We particularly
note that on page 13, lines 10-12, appellants provide the
precise values sought by the examiner. This is sufficient
guidance to one possessing the ordinary level of skill in this
art to determine the metes and bounds of the questioned claim
language.
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1-8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Pohlenz and Luckenbach and appealed claims 9-15 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cabrera
and Luckenbach.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007