Appeal No. 1997-2937
Application No. 08/420,562
regard] as the invention.” (Answer, page 3). We reverse the 1
examiner’s rejections essentially for the reasons stated by
appellants on pages 4-6 of the Brief and pages 1-3 of the
Reply Brief. We add the following comments for completeness.
OPINION
Since all of the claims on appeal have been rejected
under the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112, we
begin our analysis with a determination of whether the claims
satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph. In re
Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 501, 190 USPQ 214, 217 (CCPA 1976); In
re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
It is well settled that the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
“The legal standard for definiteness [under § 112, ¶2] is
1The final rejection of claims 3 through 5 and 13 through
15 under § 112, second paragraph, was withdrawn by the
examiner in view of the amendment subsequent to the final
rejection (see the Advisory Action dated July 12, 1996, Paper
No. 9).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007