Appeal No. 2003-0124
Application No. 09/487,832
Upon our review of claim 42, we find that the issue is a
matter of claim scope rather than description or enablement. In
claim 42, the security system includes a detector apparatus being
arranged to read each tag to determine if the specific data has
been written into (or erased from) the tag. In claim 42, the
security system also includes at least one ferrite core aerial.
The scope of the claim is such that it causes both security
systems in which the ferrite core aerial is or is not included in
the detector apparatus. However, we fail to find that the
breadth of the claim by itself gives rise to an issue of
description or enablement. Appellants are just simply claiming
different scope for the detector apparatus. Therefore, we will
not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 23, 35, 38 and 42 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because they recite the
language "such as a retail store." The Examiner alleges that the
language is confusing over what is the intended scope of the
claim.
Analysis of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, should begin
with the determination of whether claims set out and circumscribe
99
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007