Appeal No. 1997-1549
Application No. 08/208,143
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellants regard as the invention. Claims 1, 2 and 4-
21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Gloffre in view of Hakansson and Plank.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have
been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light
of appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007