Appeal No. 2004-0312
Application No. 09/277,534
the extent necessary for assessing the merits of the above noted
rejections, we will individually consider each claim which has
been separately grouped and argued by the appellant. See 37 CFR
1.192(c) (2002).
For a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints
expressed by the appellant and by the examiner regarding the
rejections before us, we refer to the aforementioned brief and
reply brief as well as to the answer.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the examiner’s
§ 102 rejection of claim 14 as being anticipated by Perobelli,
but we will not sustain any of the other rejections advanced on
this appeal.
The inquiry under the second paragraph of § 112 is to
determine whether the claims set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. It is here where the definiteness of the language
employed 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007