Appeal No. 2001-1284 Page 4
Application No. 08/792,765
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 28, filed
July 24, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 30, filed November 27,
2000) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
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.
The indefiniteness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 17 and 20
to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We sustain the
rejection of claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). In making this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007