Appeal No. 95-4134
Application 08/099,090
4. It is well settled, however, that breadth alone is not to
be equated with indefiniteness and that in determining whether
a claim sets out and circumscribes a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity, the
definiteness of the language employed in the claim 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. See In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17, 194 USPQ 187, 194 n.17
(CCPA 1977). When this standard of evaluation is applied to
the language employed in claim 1 on appeal, we are of the
opinion that this claim sets out and circumscribes a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. Given the
foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
appellant's claims 1 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007