Appeal No. 1997-0782
Application 08/158,029
1 through 15 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Cichelli.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answers
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1 through 15
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, it is to be
noted that to comply with the requirements of the cited
paragraph, a claim must set out and circumscribe a particular
area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity
when read in light of the disclosure and the teachings of the
prior art as it would be by the artisan. Note In re Johnson,
558 F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977); In re
Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
We have reviewed and considered the examiner’s reasons in
support of the rejection, but are not convinced that the cited
claims fail to comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. At the outset, we note that the breadth of the claims
is not equated with indefiniteness of the claims. See In re
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007