Appeal No. 1999-0053
Application 08/714,954
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims
to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
It is not apparent,
nor has the examiner cogently explained, why the inclusion in
a claim of the sort of charts and diagrams at issue here
necessarily runs afoul of this standard. As for the content
of the particular charts and diagrams contained in the
appealed claims, it again is not apparent, nor has the
examiner cogently explained, why the timing characteristics
embodied therein are unclear. Although these timing
characteristics are functional in nature in that they define
the prior art engine and the appellant’s engine by what they
do rather than by what they are, it is well settled that there
is nothing intrinsically wrong with the use of such a
technique in drafting patent claims. See In re Swinehart, 439
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007