Ex parte GRUBER et al. - Page 7




          Appeal No. 1998-3207                                       Page 7           
          Application No. 08/518,874                                                  


          a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.  112, second                     
          paragraph, is appropriate.                                                  


               Furthermore, appellants may use functional language,                   
          alternative expressions, negative limitations, or any style of              
          expression or format of claim which makes clear the boundaries              
          of the subject matter for which protection is sought.  As                   
          noted by the Court in In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 160 USPQ               
          226 (CCPA 1971), a claim may not be rejected solely because of              
          the type of language used to define the subject matter for                  
          which patent protection is sought.                                          


               With this as background, we have reviewed the specific                 
          objections under 35 U.S.C.  112, second paragraph, made by                 
          the examiner of the claims on appeal (answer, pp. 5-7).  After              
          conducting this review, we find ourselves in agreement with                 
          the position set forth by the appellants in the briefs that                 
          the claims under appeal are not indefinite for the reasons set              
          forth by the examiner.  Clearly the claimed apparatus is                    
          intended "for injection molding a liquid into a plurality of                
          cells in a plate for solidification therein" since the                      







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007