Appeal No. 1998-1219
Application 08/419,317
[sic, appellants regard] as the invention.” Answer, page 3.
Claims
1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Keefer (id.). Claims 11-16, 20 and 21 stand rejected under
section 103 as unpatentable over Keefer in view of Dandekar
(Answer, page 4). Claim 22 stands rejected under section 103
over Keefer in view of Dandekar and JP ‘436 (id.). Claims 8-
10 stand rejected under section 103 over Keefer in view of
Sauvion (Answer, page 5). Claims 17-19 stand rejected under
section 103 over Keefer in view of Stönner and Kikuchi (id.).
We reverse all of the examiner’s rejections essentially for
the reasons in the Brief and the reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2
“The legal standard for definiteness [under section 112,
¶2] is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in
the art of its scope. [Citations omitted].” In re Warmerdam,
33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
“[T]he definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed
- not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007