Appeal No. 2001-0436
Application No. 09/040,361
1). Claim 1, a copy of which can be found in the appendix to
appellants’ main brief, is representative of the appealed subject
matter.
The sole reference relied upon by the examiner in support of
the anticipation rejection made in the final rejection is:
Moriyama et al. (Moriyama) 5,040,634 Aug. 20, 1991
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Moriyama.1
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 13 and 16) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
14) for the respective positions of appellants and the examiner
regarding the merits of this rejection.
Discussion
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes
and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958,
189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, in order to satisfy
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, a claim must accurately
1In light of the amendment filed subsequent to the final
rejection, the examiner has withdrawn the rejection of the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See the
advisory letter mailed March 13, 2000 (Paper No. 10).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007