Appeal No. 2002-0184 -5-
Application No. 09/058,537
Claims 1 through 8 and 15 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Scheirs in view of Nakagawa, in view of Admissions by
Appellant.
Claim 6 and 8 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over EP’868 in view of Admissions by Appellant or Nakagawa, in view of
Admissions by Appellant and further in view of Scheirs.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the appellants that the rejections of the claims under §§
102(b), 103(a) and 112 are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse each of the
rejections for the reasons discussed herein.
The Rejections under § 112
Any analysis of the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112 should start with
the second paragraph, then proceed with the first paragraph. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d
498, 501, 190 USPQ 214, 217 (CCPA 1976). “The legal standard for definiteness
[under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112] is whether a claim reasonably apprises
those of ordinary skill in the art of its scope.” In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007