Appeal No. 1999-0758
Application 08/784,180
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, this panel of the
board has carefully considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
teachings,1 and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We cannot sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
This panel of the board fully comprehends the examiner’s well stated
assessment of the claim language at issue (answer, pages 3 and 4), but discerns that
claim 2 is definite in meaning for the reasons articulated below.
1 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have considered all of the disclosure of each document
for what it would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148
USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not only the specific
teachings, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007