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
brief.
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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007