Appeal No. 1997-1247
Application 08/484,196
patented cannot be determined from the language of the claims
with a reasonable degree of certainty, a rejection of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
appropriate.
In the instant case, the Examiner points to the “the
crossings” (claim 25) aslacking an antecedent basis, and
“perepndicular” (claim 25) being not the same “perpendicular”
being argued in the brief. The Examiner also asserts [answer,
page 3] that the specification and the drawings do not
distinctly illustrate the orientation defined by “exactly two
of said control gates running over each of said slot trenches
away from the periphery [of the array of said rows and columns
of memory cells].” the periphery [of the array of said rows
and columns of memory cells].”
Appellant responds to each of these points on page 4 of
the brief. We agree with Appellant that an artisan would have
recognized that the word “the” in the phrase “the crossing” is
being used as an article and does not require an antecedent
basis. Similarly, the word “perepndicular” simply is a
typographical error. Furthermore, an artisan would have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007