Appeal No. 1997-1218
Application No. 08/268,687
providing
sufficient friction to produce a milled fiber. However, the
examiner has provided no objective evidence to support his
argument. In short, the examiner has provided no reason to
doubt the objective truth of the statements contained in
appellants' specification referred to above which clearly
indicate that high-efficiency mixers are capable and do, in
fact grind fibers to produce a milled fiber. Accordingly, the
examiner's stated rejection of the appealed claims under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
The examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is also reversed, essentially
for the reasons set forth in appellants' brief. The examiner
should be aware that the purpose of the second paragraph of §
112 is to basically ensure with a reasonable degree of
particularity an adequate notification of the metes and bounds
of what is being claimed. See, In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378,
1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). As the court stated in
In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007