Appeal No. 2000-0700
Application No. 08/453,320
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST AND SECOND PARAGRAPHS
The examiner rejects claims 1-5 and 7-11, based upon the use of the language
“regardless of a prevailing level of the physical property of the medium.” Appellant
argues that this language is not indefinite and is supported by the specification. (See
brief at pages 5 and 6.) Appellant argues that when the language of the claim is read in
light of the disclosed invention and in light of the antecedent language establishing the
“medium” and the “first level” and “second level” it is clear that “the medium uniformly
and consistently presents a relatively greater impediment to the trans-mission of
relatively shorter wavelength radiation, and a relatively higher [sic; lesser]
impediment to the transmission of relatively longer wavelength radiation.” Id. We
agree with appellant that this language of claim 1 does particularly point out and
distinctly claim the invention and this language is supported by corresponding
disclosure in the specification.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellant entitles the response to the examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007