Appeal No. 96-2833
Application 08/202,772
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have
been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light
of appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner argues that “soap” in appellants’ claims is
confusing because the claims do not recite that the soap
contains a soap chemical ingredient (answer, page 7). By
“soap chemical ingredient”, the examiner apparently means a
fat or an oil.
Appellants state in their specification (page 4, lines
10-14) that “the term ‘soap’ for purposes of this invention is
a material which is a cleansing and emulsifying material or
article which does not contain fats and oils as a major
component. Preferred are ‘soaps’ which do not contain any
fats and oils.”
The examiner apparently considers appellants’ definition
of “soap” to be improper because it is inconsistent with the
ordinary meaning of that term in the art. This position is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007