Appeal No. 2006-1293 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/437,840
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Misaresh
in view of Hoshi.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Misaresh in view of Hoshi and further in view of Fraser.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed June 17, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed March 30, 2005) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. We note that the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187,
193 (CCPA 1977). In making this determination, the definiteness of the language
employed in the claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007