Appeal No. 96-1920
Application 08/218,136
We next consider the rejection of claims 8-12 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner’s
rejection states the following:
Claims 8,9 and 11,12 claim a GPS
system forming the reference path of
the vehicle. The claims are rejected
for the same reason as in the 112,
first paragraph rejection above
[answer, page 4].
Appellant argues that the claims would be clearly understood
by persons of ordinary skill in the art, especially when
considered in light of the disclosure [brief, pages 14-15].
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).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007