Appeal No. 1999-1834 Page 8
Application No. 08/876,030
and bounds of the claimed invention with the precision
required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See In
re Hammack, supra.
If the appellant's disclosure fails to set forth an
adequate definition as to what is meant by the terminology
"highly calendering" in claim 17, the examiner should
determine if the appellant has failed to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the
second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 and if so make the appropriate rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007