Appeal No. 1998-1635
Application No. 08/470,596
B. Claims 25 and 29 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Aida I, Aida II and Asmussen in combination with Yamazaki.
(Examiner’s Answer, pages 9 to 10).
C. Claims 35 and 37 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Aida I, Aida II and Asmussen in combination
with Sirtl or McNeilly. (Examiner’s Answer, page 10).
D. Claims 27, 31, 43 and 47 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3).
OPINION
A. Section 112, Second Paragraph, Rejections
The examiner must demonstrate that the claims do not “set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity”. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
(CCPA 1971). The purpose of the second paragraph of Section 112 is to basically
insure an adequate notification of the metes and bounds of what is being claimed.
See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970).
The Examiner has rejected claims 27 and 31 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite. According to the
Examiner, the phrase “mixed resonance” lacks a clear definition. (Examiner’s
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007