Appeal No. 1998-0957
Application 08/258,409
the breadth of the claim rather than to its indefiniteness.
The breadth of this particular claim is not an appropriate
basis for applying a rejection under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C.
§ 112. With respect to claim 24, we agree with appellant that
a general means within the transceiver is understood to
perform the functions of that claim. Therefore, we agree with
appellant that the artisan having considered the specification
of this application would have no difficulty ascertaining the
scope of the invention recited in claims 22-24. Therefore,
the rejection of claims 22-24 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-21 and 25-45
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of
Stevens, Anders and Inagami. Appellant has indicated that
these claims will stand or fall together [brief, page 5]. In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon
the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007