Appeal 2007-1560
Application 10/680,968
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 1-31 as lacking
an enabling disclosure for the subject matter presently claimed.
II. Claims number 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite.
The issue presented is: Has the Examiner established that the
subject matter of claims number 1-31 meets the requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph? We answer this question in the
negative.
The Examiner contends that several terms and phrases such as
“activated” and “adapted to” of claims number 1-31 are not clear
and therefore render the claims are indefinite (Answer 6-8).
“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 its scope.” In re Warmerdam,
33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The
inquiry is to determine whether the claim sets out and circumscribes
a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. The definiteness of the language employed in a 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).
After consideration of the present record, we determine that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013