Appeal No. 1998-0234
Application No. 08,406,752
by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent
art. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17, 194 USPQ
187, 194 n.17 (CCPA 1977). When that standard of evaluation is
applied to the language employed in the claims before us on
appeal, we are of the opinion that those claims set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity.
Given the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of appellant's claims 38 through 41, 43 and 60 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We do however strongly
encourage appellant to correct the minor errors noted by the
examiner during any further prosecution of the application.
We next look to the examiner's prior art rejections of
the appealed claims, turning first to the rejection of claims
1 through 3, 6, 8, 9, 12 through 16, 28 through 30, 38 through
54 and 56 through 60 under § 103 as being unpatentable over
Boggess in view of Kornelson. After a careful assessment of
appellant's independent claims 1, 28, 29, 30, 38, 42, 43, 44,
49, 54 and 56, and of the patents to Boggess and Kornelson, we
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007