Appeal No. 2004-1944 Page 3
Application No. 09/255,673
Claims 32-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failure to particularly point
out and distinctly claim that which applicant regards as his
invention. Claims 32-36 and 40-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merkh.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer and to
appellant's briefs for a complete exposition thereof.
DECISION
We reverse the examiner's stated § 112, second paragraph,
rejection and the examiner's § 103(a) rejection as expressed in
the answer. Our reasoning follows.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have been
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of
appellant's specification and the prior art, sets out and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007