Appeal No. 96-3919
Application 08/224,163
Claims 1-5 and 12-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. In order to satisfy the second
paragraph of § 112, a claim must accurately define the claimed
subject matter in the technical sense. See In re Knowlton, 481
F.2d 1357, 1365, 178 USPQ 486, 492 (CCPA 1973). Moreover, while
the claim language may appear, for the most part, to be
understandable when read in the abstract, no claim may be read
apart from and independent of the supporting disclosure on which
it is based. In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95, 98
(CCPA 1971); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 n.2, 169 USPQ 236,
238 n.2 (CCPA 1971). Applying these principles to the present
case, the claim language “extending in a plane which is generally
perpendicular to a centerline of said body portion” appearing in
each of the independent claims may appear to be clear when read
in a vacuum. However, when read in light of the supporting
disclosure, and especially the drawing figures, this claim
language raises an unreasonable degree of uncertainty as to what
the claim language may mean.
Summary
The standing rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is affirmed.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007