Appeal No. 2001-1344
Application No. 09/218,763
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity when read in light of the disclosure as it would be
by the artisan. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236,
238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability of the claim language depends on
whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is
claimed in light of the specification. Seattle Box Co. v.
Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ
568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
After reviewing the arguments of record, we are in agreement
with Appellant (Brief, page 6) that no ambiguity or lack of clarity
exists in the language of claim 11. We agree with Appellant that
the “optical block” is not being recited again in claim 11, nor is
it being optionally included or eliminated as asserted by the
Examiner (Answer, page 6). In our view, the skilled artisan would
recognize from the language of claim 11 and a review of Appellant’s
specification that the image viewing device structure of base
claims 1 and 9 is simply being further limited by the addition of a
recording means which functions to record images produced by any
combination of the previously recited image viewing device
elements.
In view of the above discussion, it is our opinion that the
skilled artisan, having considered the specification in its
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007