Appeal No. 2002-0901
Application 09/126,996
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). We agree with
appellant that the term “about” as used in the claimed invention
is reasonably precise and the artisan having considered the
specification of this application would have no difficulty
ascertaining the scope of the invention recited in the claims on
appeal. Therefore, the rejection of claims 9, 10, 19 and 25
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Erasoft and The
RightTime Clock Company. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual
basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one
having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to
modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007