Appeal No. 95-3828
Application 07/868,037
huckaback” does not describe how the fabric differs from
“normal” huckaback thus rendering the claims vague and
indefinite (answer, page 3).
The legal standard for definiteness under paragraph two
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether a claim reasonably apprises
those of skill in the art of its scope. See In re Warmerdam,
33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Even imprecise terms can be definite if they are defined
properly in the specification. See Seattle Box Co. v.
Industrial Crating and Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221
USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants’ specification discloses that huckaback weaves
are “known to the person skilled in the art” (page 3, lines
15-16). The specification then discloses the characteristics
of a normal huckaback weave (page 3, lines 17-21) and defines
a modified huckaback weave (page 3, lines 22-27).
As stated by our reviewing court in In re Oetiker , “the 4
examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art
or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
4 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007