Appeal No. 95-4691
Application 08/021,652
The Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which appellant
regards as the invention.
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy and Isaacs
combined with Dussourdd’Hinterland and EP 198321.3
Opinion
We have carefully considered the respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner.
For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the examiner's rejection.
The examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11-17 under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite because the expression “broad range of salt concentrations” in claim
1 renders the claims vague and indefinite. According to the examiner, “it is unclear what range of salt
concentrations is encompassed by the term ‘broad’ and it is unclear as to what range of salt concentrations
Appellants consider to be within the metes and bounds of their invention” (answer: p. 3).
The legal standard for indefiniteness under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether
a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. See Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceuti-
3This rejection included another reference, Kakimoto et al (U.S. Patent No. 4,837,022, issued June 6, 1989). The
examiner withdrew the reference from the rejection (answer: p. 9).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007