Appeal No. 2004-1144
Application No. 09/584,765
Schier, 10 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991) and 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2002).
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellant
and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
We will sustain both of the examiner’s section 112
rejections as well as his section 103 rejection of claims 33-40,
42, 43, 45 and 46. However, we will not sustain the other
section 103 rejections advanced on this appeal. Our reasons are
set forth below.
We first consider the section 112, second paragraph,
rejection. Here the inquiry is whether the rejected claims set
out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. In assessing this issue, 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 possessing an ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007