Appeal No. 96-1619
Application 08/263,015
In considering the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112, the general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co., v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
We find the recitation in lines 4-8 of claim 22 to
clearly recite a physical property of the material, and the
artisan would understand which materials meet this property.
Therefore, the artisan would have recognized the metes and
bounds of the invention recited in claim 22. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 22-26 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 22-26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Kuhlman in
view of Dickie or Moritz. Appellant has indicated that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007