Appeal No. 1997-2857
Application 08/171,175
particularity when read in light of the disclosure as it would
be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability of the claim language
depends on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand what is claimed in light of the specification.
Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731
F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
This rejection is related to the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection discussed supra, and involves the clarity
of the claim language “absolute track address”. The Examiner
states at page 6 of the Answer that:
This rejection will stand or fall with the
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejection, ...
As we discussed earlier in this decision, we find no
inadequacy in Appellants’ disclosure of “absolute track
addresses” and their recording in specified positions on the
tape. We, likewise, find no ambiguity or lack of clarity in
the use of such terminology in the claims. It is our view
that the skilled artisan, having considered the specification
in its entirety, would have no difficulty ascertaining the
scope of the invention recited in claims 1-5. Therefore, the
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007