Appeal No. 2002-1672
Application No. 09/412,124
With respect to the Examiner’s U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of appealed claims 1-8 and 12-22, we note
that a claim must set out and circumscribe a particular area with
a reasonable degree of precision and particularity when read in
light of the disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re
Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
Acceptability of the claim language depends on whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed in
light of the specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial
Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Examiner has taken the position (Answer, pages 6, 16,
and 17) that the intended meaning of the “triggering event”
language appearing in the appealed claims is unclear. According
to the Examiner, the TE “triggering” event described in
Appellants’ specification is a mere point of interest relative to
the acquired instructions and does not actually “trigger”
anything.
After reviewing the arguments of record, we are in agreement
with Appellants (Brief, pages 6-12; Reply Brief, pages 1 and 2)
that no ambiguity or lack of clarity exists in the claim
language. Our review of Appellants’ disclosure reveals a clear
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007