Appeal No. 95-3481
Application 08/017,977
of Patent Examining Procedure, § 2172.01, 6th ed., Rev. 3, July
1997, and In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 1233, 188 USPQ 356, 358
(CCPA 1976)). To the extent the examiner may have been relying
on the enablement requirement of section 112 as basis for the
rejection, there are no reasons presented to support this
rejection.
We will only address the reasoning presented for the
rejection under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Under
the second paragraph of section 112, we must conclude, absent
evidence to the contrary, that the subject matter of the claims
is “that which the applicant regards as his invention”.
Therefore, our discussion will only focus on the requirement of
section 112, second paragraph, that the specification conclude
with “one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming” the subject matter which appellants regard as their
invention, i.e., indefiniteness.
The legal standard for indefiniteness under paragraph two of
35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of
skill in the art of its scope. Amgen Inc. v. Chugai
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016,
1030 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Genetics Inst., Inc. v.
Amgen, Inc., 112 S.Ct. 169 (1991). The definiteness of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007