Appeal No. 1998-0178
Application No. 08/254,854
unpatentable [id.]. Appellants argue that the claimed
invention is perfectly clear when it is interpreted in light
of and consistent with the specification [reply brief].
The general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co., v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
We agree with appellants’ arguments with respect to
both points raised by the examiner. First, appellants are
correct that there is no inconsistency between a titanium-
aluminum compound and the lack of elemental titanium. The
artisan would understand claim 24 to recite that there is no
unreacted titanium, that is elemental titanium, in the device.
Second, the examiner’s objection per se to the negative
limitation in claim 24 does not properly consider the question
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007