Appeal No. 95-3070
Application 07/907,078
a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. See Amgen Inc. v. Chugai
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1991), cert.
denied sub nom., Genetics Inst., Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 112 S.Ct. 169 (1991). The definiteness of the
language employed must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art
and the application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art. See In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 501, 190 USPQ 214, 217 (CCPA 1976). On the
record before us, the examiner has failed to provide such an analysis. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for indefiniteness is reversed.
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and the examiner’s rejections of claims 1-6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007