Source: https://www.ptab.us/2019/02/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:47:31+00:00

Document:
At the outset, we note these cited prior art references need not recite the claim language ipsissimis verbis. See Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The Examiner also objected to the drawings with respect to the subject matter of claim 43 under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). Final Act. 2. In particular, the Examiner objected to the drawings because "for the elected species the second spring is element 38 and the second shaft is element 36, there is no illustration which shows what is claimed." Id. Normally, an objection is not an appealable matter. See In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967). However, if our disposition of a rejection also disposes of an issue in an objection, we may address the objection. See MPEP §1201.
Claims are in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)/second paragraph if "the claims, read in light of the specification, reasonably apprise those skilled in the art both of the utilization and scope of the invention, and if the language is as precise as the subject matter permits." Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
The Examiner must consider the specific facts of the case and provide supporting reasoning. In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1382 (CCPA 1973).
2875 Ex Parte Creasman et al 14287812 - (D) REN 102/103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. LEE, NATHANIEL J.
1713 Ex Parte Zhang et al 14094921 - (D) NAGUMO 103 CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION DUCLAIR, STEPHANIE P.
2, id. at 2129. While our post-Nautilus cases indicate that terms of degree are not "inherently indefinite" in light of the Supreme Court's decision, we have recognized that claims having terms of degree will fail for indefiniteness unless they "provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art" when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history.
Id. at 1395-96, citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
2854 Ex Parte Pace et al 14991835 - (D) TIMM 112(2) 112(2)/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DA) NGUYEN, QUANG X.L.
However, in determining pertinent art, [t]he question is not whether simple concepts ... are within the knowledge of lay people or even within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Rather, the question is whether an inventor would look to this particular art to solve the particular problem at hand.
Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

References: v. 
 § 1
 §1201
 § 112
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.