Appeal No. 98-1563 Page 12
Application No. 08/469,198
light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular
application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one
possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.
In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA
1977).
In this case, we have reviewed the examiner's rejection
set forth above and fail to understand in what respect the
examiner believes claims 39 and 52 fail to define the metes
and bounds of the claimed invention with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. From our perspective, the
metes and bounds of claims 39 and 52 would be understood by
one skilled in the art. Accordingly, claims 39 and 52 are
considered to be definite, as required by the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The written description requirement
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007