Appeal No. 1998-0957
Application 08/258,409
requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 that the claim explain how
the reset signal is used. He adds that the reset circuit of
claim 22 is clear and that claim 22 sets forth the invention
in a manner that would be understood by the artisan [brief,
pages 5-7]. With respect to claim 24, appellant argues that
the claim simply recites functions of the transceiver which
are implemented under program control. Appellant asserts that
the structure supporting such functional recitations of a
programmed device would be clearly understood by the artisan
[id., pages 7-8].
The general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and 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).
The examiner’s rejection of claim 22 is directed to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007