Appeal No. 2001-0382
Application No. 08/861,481
consideration, in reaching our decision, 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 2-5 and 8 particularly point out the invention in a
manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We
are also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
appealed claims 1-9 and 11-14. We reach the opposite conclusion
with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 10
and 24. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claims 2-5 and 8, we note that 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 it would be by the artisan. In
re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
Acceptability of the claim language depends on whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed in light
of the specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating &
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007