Appeal No. 1997-2660 Page 12
Application No. 08/224,407
as presently claimed. Therefore, we reject claims 1-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. Next, we address the indefiniteness of
claims 1-11.
Indefiniteness
Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b), we enter another new ground
of rejection against claims 1-11. The second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 requires that the specification conclude "with
one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his
invention."
As aforementioned regarding the inadequacy of the written
description of the claims, each of claims 1-11 recites that
the data path test circuitry writes a pattern to the data RAM.
In view of the teachings of the specification explained in the
previous section of our opinion, the claims take on an
unreasonable degree of uncertainty. Therefore, claims 1-11
fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter that the appellant regards as his invention.
Next, we address the obviousness of claims 1-11.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007