Appeal No. 96-1366
Application 08/105,617
that they may more readily and accurately determine the
boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility
of infringement and dominance. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378,
166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). The inquiry, as stated in In re
Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971) is:
“...whether the claims do, in fact, set out
and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and
particularity.... [t]he definiteness of the
language employed 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.”
In the instant case, paragraph (a) of claim 3
recites:
each said body (2,3) consisting of a
liquid- permeable topsheet (4), a liquid-
impermeable backsheet (5) and a mass of
absorbent material (6) sandwiched
therebetween.
This paragraph, by its use of the phrase “consisting of”,
limits the structure of each body to a liquid-permeable
topsheet, a liquid-impermeable backsheet and a mass of
absorbent material sandwiched therebetween. See MPEP §
2111.03. However, the succeeding paragraphs of claim 3 recite
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007