Appeal No. 96-1119
Application 07/690,176
The claims are clearly not distinctly
claimed because the claim language
references “using (a) computer
program” located in the Figures [final
rejection, page 2].
This rejection appears to be based on a general proposition
that a claim which incorporates material from the drawings
cannot be in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112. This general
proposition is incorrect.
The general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co., v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
We fail to see how the computer program of Figures 5
through 182 could be more specifically recited than the
current incorporation of these figures into the claims. The
claims would not become clearer simply by writing the computer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007