Appeal No. 96-1659
Application 08/166,931
obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 35-49, 51
and 55-68. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to
claims 50 and 52-54. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 35-49, 53
and 55-68 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The
examiner’s rejection states the following:
In each of these claims, the language
“characterized” is indefinite and should be
changed to appropriate claim language such as
-comprising- [answer, page 3].
Appellant argues that the criticized term “is particularly
appropos” [brief, page 3].
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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007