Appeal No. 95-3119 Page 7
Application No. 08/089,810
The indefiniteness issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 7, 9 through 24 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant
regards as the invention.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). In making this
determination, the definiteness of the language employed in the
claims 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. Id.
The examiner's focus during examination of claims for
compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is whether the claims meet the threshold
requirements of clarity and precision, not whether more suitable
language or modes of expression are available. Some latitude in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007