Appeal No. 2003-1060 Page 2
Application No. 09/101,695
from step b) to step a); and
c) determining ammonia and/or ammonium ion content of said liquid sample
from an amount of a component generated or consumed by said secondary reaction
system.
No references are relied on by the examiner, and the sole issue for our review is
the propriety of the examiner’s rejection of claims 2-7 and 15 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite.
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
In view of its brevity, we reproduce the examiner’s rejection in its entirety
(Answer, page 4):
In claim 15(a) “incubating” is queried and reacting may be intended.
Further, claim 15 is directed to assaying ammonia but no such steps to
perform that function are found. Standard assay steps may include
contacting or reacting, determining and correlating. Newly amending
claim 15(c) is indefinite regarding what component is determined to
determine ammonia. Claim 5 should begin with a capitalized letter.
“[T]he definiteness of the language employed [in a claim] 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.” In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
(CCPA 1971).
Having reviewed the claims in light of the specification, we are in complete
agreement with appellants that “[w]hen each of the [e]xaminer’s criticisms as to the
wording of the claims is scrutinized, it is apparent that none merits affirming the
rejection of the claims for indefiniteness” (Brief, page 5).
Appellants’ reasoning is set forth on pages 5-9 of the Brief, and pages 1-3 of the
Reply Brief. We adopt appellant’s position as our own (with the exception of appellants’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007