Ex Parte GILSON - Page 4




               Appeal No. 2001-0840                                                                                               
               Application No. 08/896,882                                                                                         


               involves cross-linking which produces a non-thermoplastic material2.  Id.  We find no evidence to                  
               the contrary proffered by the examiner.  Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.                                   
                      We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                      
               second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the               
               subject matter which regards as his invention.  The purpose of the second paragraph of Section 112                 
               is to basically insure, with a reasonable degree of particularity, an adequate notification of the                 
               metes and bounds of what is being claimed.  See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ                       
               204, 208 (CCPA 1970).  As the court stated in In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236,                      
               238 (CCPA 1971), the determination of whether the claims of an application satisfy the                             
               requirements of the second paragraph of Section 112 is                                                             
                      merely to determine whether the claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a                              
                      particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.  It is here                        
                      where the definiteness of language employed 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 by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in                      
                      the pertinent art. [Emphasis ours; footnote omitted.]                                                       
               Here, the examiner criticizes the use of the terminology “that is not a thermoplastic” since it is said            
               to be inconsistent with the claimed elongation property, i.e., “elongation of 325-425%”.  The                      
               examiner, however, does not indicate that the scope of the claim language cannot be ascertained.                   


                      2 While thermoplastic is defined as “a linear polymer which may be softened by heat and                     
               cooled in a reversible physical process,” thermoset plastic (non-thermoplastic) is defined as “a                   
               network polymer usually obtained by cross linking a linear polymer.”  See page 12 of Polymer                       
               Chemistry: An Introduction by Seymour et al., Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1981.                                           
                                                                4                                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007