Appeal No. 1999-1460
Application No. 08/070,859
since its meaning is not art recognized and cannot be ascertained
from the specification” (answer, page 4).
As correctly indicated by the examiner on page 2 of the
answer, all of the appealed claims will stand or fall together.
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above-noted
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we will
sustain each of these rejections.
As indicated above, it is the examiner’s basic position that
the appealed claim phrase “regular aggregate structure” is not an
art recognized phrase and is not defined in the appellants’
specification disclosure in such a manner as to enable one having
ordinary skill in the art to practice the here-claimed invention
as required by the first paragraph of Section 112.
Correspondingly, the examiner considers this absence of a
definition for the phrase “regular aggregate structure” to render
the claims offensive to the second paragraph of Section 112.
Thus, because they are based upon the same deficiencies, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007