Appeal No. 2002-0234
Application No. 09/496,087
appellant's claim 1 is unwarranted. We know of no requirement
that alternative embodiments like those set forth in appellant's
claim 1, which are clearly disclosed in the specification (page
7) and readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, must
necessarily be set forth in separate independent claims. Again
applying the standard set forth above in In re Johnson, we are of
the opinion that claim 1 sets out and circumscribes a particular
area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity, and
that one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand
what is being claimed.
Given the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of appellant's claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
Regarding the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Granlind in
view of Smith or Ferris, we find that we are in agreement with
appellant's position as set forth in the brief and reply brief.
Apparently it is the examiner's position that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant's invention to somehow substitute what the examiner
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007