Appeal No. 1999-2512
Application No. 08/888,499
(6) claims 29-32, 38-40 and 42-45 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over Homma in view of Chebi or
Nguyen (Answer, page 17); and
(7) claims 29-33, 38-40 and 42-45 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1-10 of Musaka (Answer, page 19).
We reverse the examiner's rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and second paragraphs, and the section 103 (a) rejections
with Lane or Homma as the primary references. We affirm the
rejection for obviousness-type double patenting and all of the
examiner's rejections under section 102(e) or 103 (a) with
Nishiyama as a primary or sole reference. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
A. The Rejections under 35 U. S. C. § 112
Any analysis of the claims for compliance with section 112
must first begin with the requirements of the second paragraph. See
In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1234-35, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
The legal standard for definiteness under the second paragraph of
section 112 is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007