Appeal No. 1999-0161
Application 08/441,567
claim is not indefinite. See Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1992).
The examiner argues that the terms Athe presence@, Apositive reading@, Apositive
result@, Anormal result@ are not understood and it is not clear what is intended by these
claim terms. Answer, page 8. The examiner also argues Athe test sample employed@
lacks antecedent basis in claim 15, and the term Athe concentration lacks antecedent basis
in claim 18. We find the scope of the above claim terms would be reasonably
ascertainable by those skilled in the art since a person of skill in the art would understand
operation of the invention from the specification in view of the level of knowledge
described. Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146 (Bd. Pat. App & Int. 1992); In re
Goffe, 526 F.2d 1393, 188 USPQ 131 (CCPA 1975); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 169
USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA
1970). In view of the above, the rejection of Claims 14-20 and 50-70 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. ' 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which appellant regards as the invention is reversed.
Other Matters
The examiner has noted (Answer, page 9) and Appellants
have recognized (Brief, page 3) that the recitation in claim
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007