Appeal No. 2006-0780
Application No. 10/331,716
asserts the phrase “‘a rate selected to improve adherence of
the phosphor particles to the substrate based upon at least one
property of the binder solution’” is indefinite because there
is no basis for comparison of improved adherence. (Answer,
p. 3).
Appellants assert that “a person of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that the rate is to be selected among
other possible withdrawal rates such that the selected rate
results in relatively improved adherence of the phosphor
particles to the substrate.” (Brief, p. 7).
“The legal standard for definiteness [under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112] is whether a claim reasonably
apprises those of skill in the art of the scope.” In re
Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir.
1994). The inquiry under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 is to determine whether the claims set out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. The definiteness of the language
employed in the claim must be analyzed not in a vacuum but in
light of the teachings of the particular application. In re
Moore, 439, F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007