Appeal No. 2000-1608
Application 08/953,998
Appellant replies that "ejected" is an adjective modifying
the noun "direction" (RBr2). It is further argued that although
the Examiner claims the phrase is ambiguous, the Examiner appears
to have a complete understanding of what the term means (RBr2).
While we do not profess to be grammar experts, we do know
that the word "ejected" is a past participle used as an
adjectival (a word or group of words which functions as an
adjective) to modify the noun phrase "direction of the particle,"
and it is not being used as a verb as stated by the Examiner.
It seems to us that noun phrase "direction of a particle" is
merely another way to say "particle direction" and that the
"ejected direction of a particle" is just another way to say
"ejected particle direction" and is not wrong or indefinite.
Although the Examiner states that the phrase "ejected direction
of a particle" is ambiguous, he does not explain what two or more
interpretations are possible. We conclude that claim 1 satisfies
the definiteness requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. The rejection of claims 1-6 under § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
The simplest and most direct way to show anticipation is to
explain where each claim limitation is found, either expressly or
by principles of inherency, in the reference. This correlation
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007