Appeal No. 1998-1146 Page 5
Application No. 08/410,177
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner’s
§ 112, second paragraph rejection is not sustainable.
However, we shall sustain the examiner’s rejections based on
the applied prior art. Our reasoning follows.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have
been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light
of appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
With regard to the appealed claims, the examiner (answer,
pages 3 and 4) argues that:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007