Appeal No. 2003-0745 Page 3
Application No. 09/161,970
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 20, mailed May 17, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 26, mailed
December 2, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (Paper No. 25, filed November 4, 2002) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 6 to 11, 16 to 18, 47, 49 and 51
to 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). In making this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007