Appeal No. 2004-0061
Application 09/745,762
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art Shreim reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations which
follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. After reviewing
appellant’s specification, drawing Figures 1 through 4, and the
claims on appeal in light thereof, and also in light of
appellant’s arguments in their brief (pages 11-12) and reply
brief, it is our opinion that the scope and content of the
subject matter embraced by appellant’s claims on appeal are
reasonably clear and definite, and fulfill the requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In our view, the examiner's
criticism of the language used in appellant’s claims on appeal is
misplaced. In determining whether a claim sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity, the definiteness of the language
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007