Appeal No. 2003-1363
Application No. 09/608,985
precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's concern in this rejection seems to be
directed to matters of description and enablement, not
indefiniteness (answer, page 6). Simply stated, in the present
case, we do not perceive that the claims before us are
indefinite to the extent that they cannot be understood. Since
the metes and bounds of the claimed subject can be ascertained,
the indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, cannot be sustained.
Anticipation
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5
through 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Miller.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007