Ex parte FILEPP et al. - Page 3

          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.                                         

               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                

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007