Appeal No. 1997-2990
Application 08/260,318
[answer, page 3] . 1
The examiner notes that the use of the term “completely” in
lines 34 and 35 of claim 1 is contradictory to the use in
lines 9 and 10 where the phrase “substantially complete” is
used to refer to these beam splitter segments [id., page 5].
Appellant responds that those skilled in the art would suffer
absolutely no claim confusion from this claim language [reply
brief, pages 2-3]. 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); In re Johnson,
558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1977). 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).
1All other rejections of claims 1 and 2 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been withdrawn by the
examiner in the answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007