Appeal No. 1998-2916
Application No. 08/606,975
separate arguments are of record in this appeal. Note In re2
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that claims 1-6 particularly point out the invention in a
manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
It is further our view that the evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the
invention as set forth in claims 1-6 and 16. We reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claims 8-15. Accordingly,
we affirm-in-part.
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of appealed claims 1-6, we note that a
claim must set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity when read in
light of the disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re
From the record in this case, it is apparent that Appellant2
inadvertently omitted dependent claim 16 from its proper grouping with its
base claim 1.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007