Appeal No. 1997-3481
Application 08/476,543
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Again, as discussed by Appellants in their Reply Brief,
the Examiner did not repeat the § 112, second paragraph,
rejection from the first Office action in the Final Rejection.
The Examiner resurrected the rejection in the Examiner's
Answer and added additional arguments. Appellants' Reply
Brief addressing the § 112, second paragraph, issue is
considered proper.
The Examiner considers the claims indefinite because the
"[c]laims tend to be couched in terms of desired results
rather than structure" (EA2). The Examiner further states
(EA3): "Subparagraph[s] (f)[,] (e) and (g) of claims 15,[
]25, and 26[,] respectively[,] contain the misdescriptive
language. The dependent claims are equally nebulous when
compared with the disclosure."
Appellants argue that the Examiner appears to be
objecting to the use of functional language interspersed with
the recitation of structure, and that functional language as
such is permissible (RBr7).
While functional language not associated with any
structure may be indefinite, here the functions recited in the
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007