Appeal No. 1998-2476
Application No. 08/074,485
define a plane as apparently alleged by the Examiner. Rather,
claims 124 merely recites that the data read/write device is
one of a plurality of data read/write devices disposed in a
regular two-dimensional arrangement in a plane.”
Regarding claims 153, 178, 203, and 228, the examiner
asserts that they lack proper antecedent basis, the reasoning
being the same as for claim 124 above where a single magnetic
recording medium is recited in the independent claim and these
dependent claims refer to a plurality of mediums or a
plurality of heads.
Appellants respond in the same manner as they did
regarding the same issue with respect to claim 124, see brief
at pages 20 and 21.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims
to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
In making this determination, the definiteness of the language
employed in the claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but
always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007