Appeal No. 97-1079 Application 08/562,471 of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kummerlin in view of either Lamp or Schwarting. Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we make the following new rejection. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant regards as the invention. The purpose of the second paragraph of § 112 is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprises, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). Moreover, in order to satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph of § 112, a claim must accurately define the invention in the technical sense. See In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486, 492-93 (CCPA 1973). In addition, in determining the definitness of a claim, the terminology employed therein may not be read apart from and independent of the supporting disclosure 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007