Appeal No. 2000-2288
Application No. 08/960,576
(Paper No. 13, filed January 5, 2000) and reply brief (Paper
No. 15, filed May 9, 2000) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. After reviewing
appellants' specification and claim 7 in light thereof, and
also in light of appellants' arguments in their brief, it is
our opinion that the scope and content of the subject matter
embraced by appellants' claim 7 is reasonably clear and
definite, and fulfills the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. In our view, the examiner's criticism of
the language used in appellants' claim 7 is unwarranted. We
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007