Appeal No. 97-3290
Application 08/465,896
the “odor specialists” were indeterminate. In light of the
above, it is quite apparent to us that one having ordinary
skill would not be able to determine if a particular surface-
active agent was within the scope of the claim. As such, the
claims before us are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, since the metes and bounds thereof are
indeterminate when read in light of the underlying
specification.
We are not in accord with appellant’s viewpoint (brief,
page 3) that the claimed subject matter is supported by a
disclosed standard, i.e., the Surface-Active Agent
Effectiveness Test, for determining whether or not an agent is
able to reduce the odor of urine. The test is clearly not a
standard, but one based upon the subjective perceptions of
“odor specialists”. It follows that we also do not share
appellant’s opinion (brief, page 4) that one skilled in the
art would understand what is meant by the surface agent being
effective to reduce the odor of urine. This would be so since
an agent may or may not be effective to reduce the odor of
urine as subjectively assessed by a particular, selected panel
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007