Appeal No. 1998-1822 Page 4
Application No. 08/627,213
We refer to the brief and to the answer for the opposing
viewpoints expressed by the appellants and by the examiner
concerning the above-noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will not sustain any of
the examiner's rejections.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner has expressed a number of concerns regarding
the claim language. See answer, page 9 for the statement of
the examiner’s rejection. However, the examiner simply does
not carry the burden of explaining why the language of either
claims 11 or 14, as it would have been interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art in light of appellants’
specification, drawings and the prior art, fails to set out
and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity.
As explained by appellants (brief, pages 13-15), the
claim language in question is reasonably definite. We are in
agreement with appellants’ position since the examiner has not
shown that the claims, in question, do not define appellants’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007