Appeal No. 2001-1344
Application No. 09/218,763
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of
the rejections, and the evidence relied upon by the Examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure in this application describes the invention as
set forth in claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 13-19, and 21-24, all of the
appealed claims, in a manner which complies with the requirements
of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. It is also our view
that claim 11 particularly points out the invention in a manner
which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We reach
the opposite conclusion with respect to the Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejection of claim 19. Accordingly, we affirm-in-
part.
We consider first the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of
claims 11 and 19 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The general rule is that a claim must set out and circumscribe a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007