Appeal No. 1999-0874
Application 08/726,733
Kirk-Othmer, "Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology," Volume 13, Third Edition, pages
637-640 (1981)
Muller, "Device Electronics for Integrated Circuits," Second Edition, pages 96-98 (1986)
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Claims 7-13 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
appellants’ admitted prior art in Figures 38 and 39. Finally, claims 1-6 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon
appellants’ admitted prior art Figures 38 and 39 in view of Teng.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1-13 under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, it is to be noted that to comply with the requirements of the cited
paragraph, 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 and the
teachings of the prior art as it would be by the artisan. Note In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235,
169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007