Appeal No. 1997-1208
Application 08/077,219
detail the generation of a proxy object which results in the
emulation of a target object. In our view, the present
disclosure is of sufficient detail so as to enable one of
ordinary skill to implement an operative embodiment of the
claimed invention.
In view of the above, we find that the Examiner has not
established a reasonable basis for challenging the sufficiency
of the instant disclosure. While some experimentation by
artisans may be necessary in order to practice the invention,
we find that such experimentation would not be undue.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2,
4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19,
and 20 as being indefinite under the second
paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The general rule is that 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 as it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007