Appeal No. 1997-3103
Application 08/449,647
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We reverse the rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second and fourth paragraphs, and the rejections
of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103.
Rejection of claims 5, 7, 9, 11-14 and 18
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).
The examiner points out that claim 3 recites that the
site of the hydrogel polymer is disposed in an aperture,
whereas claim 7 recites that a plurality of sites of the
hydrogel polymer are disposed on low density regions, and
argues that it is unclear how an aperture, which has no
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007