Appeal No.1997-0898
Application No. 08/281,879
upon by the Examiner as support for the obviousness rejection.
We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the
Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the claims particularly point out the invention in a manner
which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We are
also of the conclusion that the evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in the appealed claims 2-18.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of
claims 2-18 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The
general rule is that a claim must set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity when read in light of the disclosure as it would
be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability of the claim language
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007