Appeal No. 1997-2646
Application 08/103,089
the language must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in
light of teachings of the disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing ordinary skill in the art. In
re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA
1977); citing In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236,
238 (1971). Furthermore, our reviewing court points out that
a claim which is of such breadth that it reads on subject
matter disclosed in the prior art is rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 rather than under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 715, 218 USPQ 195,
197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); citing In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904,
909, 164 USPQ 642, 645-46 (CCPA 1970). "The legal standard for
definiteness is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of
skill in the art of its scope." In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d
1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
We find that the claims at issue set out and circumscribe
methods of selective removal and of increasing an
accommodation of amplitude of an ocular lens with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. They also apprise the
person of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007