Appeal No. 1998-1219
Application 08/419,317
4-13). Therefore we determine that the examiner has failed to
present convincing evidence or reasoning that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have been apprised of the scope of
the language in question.
The only basis the examiner has set forth to establish
the indefiniteness of the word “predetermined” is this word is
unclear “in the basis for determining it.” Answer, page 3.
Again we determine that the examiner has not met the initial
burden of establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been apprised of the scope of the language in
question, when read in light of the specification disclosure.
As noted by appellants on page 9 of the Brief, the
specification teaches the determination of time sequences
(page 26, ll. 6-13). Furthermore, the specification discloses
specific “predetermined time sequences” (pages 19-21).
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the
Brief, we determine that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of unpatentability regarding the definiteness
of the language in question. Accordingly, the rejection of
the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2, is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007