Appeal No. 2002-1219
Application No. 09/471,667
The first rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (second paragraph) as being incorrect in
not reading on the disclosure.
In order to satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph
of § 112, a claim must accurately define the invention in the
technical sense. See In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1366, 178
USPQ 486, 492-93 (CCPA 1973).
We certainly understand the examiner’s point of view as to
the claim language in question. However, we do not share the
perception that the specified instances in the rejection (page 2
of Paper No. 9 and page 3 of the answer) address incorrect claim
recitations relative to the original disclosure, as follows.
First, on page 4 of the specification, the input feeder is
clearly indicated to be “operatively associated” with a
processing system. Thus, it is not incorrect to claim the input
feeder separate from the processing system. Second, while the
robotic handling system is clearly part of the micro device using
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007