Appeal No. 2003-1472
Application No. 09/606,955
Claims 9, 34, 84 and 97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Enders in view of Ketchpel, and
further in view of Palm.
Claims 89 and 90 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Enders in view of Ketchpel, and further in
view of Brucker.
Reference is made to appellant’s supplemental main brief and
reply brief (Paper Nos. 16 and 18) and to the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 17) for the respective positions of appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires that the
claims 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
determination, the definiteness of the language employed in the
claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of
the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application
disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the
ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Id.
The examiner’s focus during examination of claims for
compliance with the requirements for definiteness under 35 U.S.C.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007