Appeal No. 1997-1505 Page 5
Application No. 08/580,778
decision. Arguments which the appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered. See
37 CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
indefiniteness and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12, and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. We will not support the examiner’s position. The
purpose of the second paragraph of Section 112 is to basically
insure, 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007