Appeal No. 1997-4290
Application No. 08/218,647
175 USPQ 93, 95 (CCPA 1972). Nor has the examiner made manifest how the
other applied references would make up for the deficiency in the teachings of
Andersson ‘590.
Additionally, I write separately since I do not desire to take part in the
majority’s views with regard to claims 20, 21 and 29 as apparently lacking
antecedent support and consequently being in apparent violation of the provisions
of 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). From my perspective, I find claims 20, 21 and 29
to be reasonably definite under the requisite standard and in accord with the
disclosure of appellants’ specification. See, e.g., page 14, lines 1-29 of
appellants’ specification.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007