Appeal No. 1998-3006 Page 5
Application No. 08/586,977
The indefiniteness issues
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 7 and 9 to 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the
metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530
F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976). In addition,
patentability is not the only consideration requiring the
claim language to be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph. In In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971), the court held that with respect to the
second paragraph of § 112, the inquiry is "to determine
whether the claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity." In In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166
USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970), the court specifically related the
matter of infringement to the issue of indefiniteness, stating
as follows:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007