Ex parte SHINAGAWA et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1997-3993                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/462,561                                                  


          34, mailed June 2, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning              
          in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 31,               
          filed November 14, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 33, filed               
          March 7, 1997) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.                  


                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellants' specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                     
          respective positions articulated by the appellants and the                  
          examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                      
          determinations which follow.                                                


          The indefiniteness rejection                                                
               We will not sustain the rejection of claims 8 through 10               
          under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.                                    


               The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims                
          to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a                        
          reasonable degree of precision and particularity.  In re                    
          Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007