Appeal No. 2004-2250
Application No. 09/542,154
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Brown, Kikinis, Namma, Humpleman, Gerba and
further in view of Barnett.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Brown, Kikinis, Namma, Humpleman, Gerba,
Nielsen and further in view of Oran.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 20, mailed April
7, 2004) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 16, filed August 25,
2003), supplemental brief (Paper No. 19, filed January 28, 2004)
and the reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed April 15, 2004) for
Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claim 30 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Examiner identifies the terms
“the method acts” and “the logic” as having insufficient
antecedent basis (answer, page 3). In response, Appellant relies
on MPEP § 2173.05(e) and argues that if the scope of the claim
can be determine, lack of antecedent basis for these terms does
not make the claim indefinite (supplemental brief, page 11).
Appellants further argue that it has not been shown as to why the
skilled artisan would be confused by the claim language (id.).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007