Appeal No. 1998-1901
Application 08/506,804
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).
We will not repeat what is already argued in detail in
appellant’s briefs because we completely agree with the
position argued by appellant. 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 claim 14. Therefore, the rejection of claim 14
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not
sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007