Appeal No. 1997-3524 Page 4
Application No. 08/336,402
1 and 4, the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 14,
19 and 21-25. However, we reverse all of the other rejections
advanced by the examiner. Our reasoning follows.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have been
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of
appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232,
1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner’s concern is with an alleged failure of the
language of dependent claim 6 to define the claimed invention. In
this regard, the examiner asserts that the claim 6 requirement
that the porous member comprise a pnuematic bearing, a magnetic
tape guide member, a filter, or a ceramic article casting mold is
an alleged intended use without a further limitation of the
claimed subject matter. We disagree substantially for the
reasons set forth by appellants at page 14 of the brief.
Consistent with the specification, we find that appellants’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007