Appeal No. 94-4061
Application 07/659,683
have made the determination that the examiner's rejections of
claims 3-7, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 should not be sustained. Our
reasons for the determination follow.
With regard to the examiner's rejection of claims 3-7,
9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we
initially note that the purpose of the requirement stated in the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is to provide those who would
endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area as
circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice
demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and
adequately determine the boundaries of protection involved and
evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance. In re
Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). The
inquiry as stated in In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971) is:
... whether the claims do, in fact, set out and circu
mscri
be a
parti
cular
area
with
a
reaso
nable
degree of precision and particularity.... [t]he
definiteness of the language employed must be
analyzed--not in a vacuum, but always in light of
the teachings of the prior art and of the particular
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007