Appeal No. 2001-0851
Application No. 09/042,735
Claims 19-22 and 24-40 are rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant
regards as his invention.
Claims 19-22 and 24-40 also are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abraham in view of
Gruenewaelder.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellant and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections, we refer to the brief (filed April 25, 2000) and the
“REPLY TO EXAMINER” (filed August 24, 2000) as well as to the
answer (mailed November 21, 2000).
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we cannot sustain the
rejections advanced by the examiner on this appeal.
In assessing the examiner’s Section 112, second paragraph,
rejection, the proper inquiry is whether the claims set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. It is here where the definiteness
of the language employed must be analyzed, not in a vacuum but,
always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007