Ex parte POSHADLO - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1999-2035                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 07/772,698                                                  


                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellant's specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                     
          respective positions articulated by the appellant and the                   
          examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                      
          determinations which follow.                                                


          The indefiniteness rejection                                                
               We will not sustain the rejection of claims 32 through 37              
          under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.                                    


               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).                
          In making this determination, the definiteness of the language              
          employed in the claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but               
          always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the                
          particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted                









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007