Appeal No. 2003-1512 3
Application No. 09/256,709
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellants’ regard as the invention.
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph
one, as the specification, as originally filed, does not provide support for the invention as
now claimed and for failing to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the
invention.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the appellants that the rejection of the claims under Section
112, first paragraph is not well founded. We agree with the examiner that the rejection of
the claims under Section 112, second paragraph is well founded. Accordingly, we sustain
the examiner’s Section 112, second paragraph rejection for the reasons discussed herein.
As an initial matter, it is the appellants position that, “[c]laims 1, 2, 3, 4, and
5 stand or fall as a group.” See Brief, page 4. Accordingly, we select claim 1as
representative of the claimed subject matter and limit our consideration thereto. See
37 CFR §1.192(c)(7) (2000).
The Rejections under Section 112
Any analysis of the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 should start with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007