Appeal No. 2000-0963
Application No. 08/736,883
of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the obviousness rejections. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along
with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that claims 1 and 89-91 particularly point out the invention in
a manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the
view that the prior art evidence relied upon does not support
either of the prior art rejections as formulated by the examiner.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1 and 89-91 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner’s rejection
states the following:
In claim 1 and claim 89, the phrase ‘the data,
which is’ is not correct [final rejection, page
2, incorporated into answer].
Appellants argue that the objected to language is appropriately set
forth as a parenthetical clause [brief, pages 10-11].
The general rule is 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007