Appeal No. 2001-0595
Application No. 09/079,293
Our evaluation of the issues raised in this appeal has
included a careful assessment of appellant's specification and
claims, the applied prior art references, and the respective
positions advanced by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the evidence relied upon by the examiner is sufficient to
support a conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with
respect to appellant's claims 1 through 5, but not with
respect to method claim 6. We have also concluded that claim
6 on appeal is reasonably definite and thus we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph. Our reasoning for these determinations
follows.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. After reviewing
appellant's specification and the above enumerated claim in
light thereof, it is our opinion that the scope and content of
the subject matter embraced by appellant's claim 6 is
reasonably clear and definite, and fulfills the requirements
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In our view, any
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007