Appeal No. 95-3781
Application 07/978,223
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 circumscribe a particular
area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particu-larity ...
[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 application disclosure as
it would be interpreted by one
possessing the ordinary level of skill
in the pertinent art.
In the instant case, the examiner is of the opinion
that it is unclear how (1) a polarizer can be "fixedly
arranged to provide three different azimuthal angles of
polarized light" as recited in claim 6, and (2) an analyzer
can be "fixed at three different azimuthal angles" as recited
in claim 9. The examiner reasons that a polarizer or analyzer
cannot be fixed and still provide three different angles of
polarized light. However, in our view, the language of claims
6 and 9 broadly indicates that the polarizer or analyzer is
fixed, by a certain arrangement, so that three azimuthal
angles are provided. This conclusion is supported by the film
on the specification which states at page 4 that the thickness
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007