Appeal No. 1996-1644
Application No. 07/933,147
employed must be analyzed-not in a vacuum, but
always in light of the teachings of the prior art
and of the particular application disclosure as it
would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary
level of skill in the pertinent art. [Emphasis ours;
footnote omitted.]
Here, the examiner criticizes the claims on appeal for using
incorrect grammar, employing the words “desired” and “of
interest”, and lacking antecedent basis. See Answer, page 2.
The examiner’s criticism, however, has not taken into
consideration the teachings of the specification. See the
Answer and the Supplemental Answer in their entirety.
When these improper grammar, words and antecedent basis
referred to by the examiner are read in light of the teachings
of the specification, they do not render the claimed subject
matter indefinite. Although we share the examiner’s view that
the claims could have been written better grammatically or
otherwise, we do not believe that it can seriously be
contended that the artisan would not have understood the scope
of the claims. This view is further buttressed by the
examiner’s own comments at page 3 of the Answer.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007