Ex parte LYLES et al. - Page 6

          Appeal No. 96-1692                                                          
          Application 08/156,811                                                      

                    After reviewing the claims on appeal, it is our                   
          determination that the examiner is incorrect concerning the                 
          questioned claim language.  We reach this conclusion essentially            
          for the reasons set forth by appellants on pages 3-5 of their               

          When the language of the claims on appeal is considered from the            
          perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, we have no doubt           
          that such an artisan would understand the metes and bounds of the           
          claimed subject matter.                                                     

                    Based on the foregoing, we find that the scope of the             
          subject matter embraced by appellants' claims 1 through 5, 20               
          and 21 is reasonably clear and definite, and fulfills the                   
          requirement of 35 U.S.C.  112, second paragraph, that it provide           
          those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach                 
          the area circumscribed by the claim, with the adequate notice               
          demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily               
          and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved              
          and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.  See            
          In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007