Appeal No. 96-1739
Application 08/227,301
of the invention as set forth in claims 25 and 28-35.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 25 and 28-35
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner’s
rejection states the following:
The claimed terms “low”, “substantially”,
“generally” and “about” render the claims
indefinite [substitute answer, page 4].
It is the examiner’s position that these are terms of degree
for which no appropriate standard has been provided in the
disclosure for measuring that degree. The examiner concludes
that the artisan would not be apprised of the scope of the
invention when the claims are read in light of the disclosure.
Appellant provides arguments as to why the criticized terms
would be clearly understood by the artisan when such terms are
interpreted in light of the disclosure [brief, pages 8-12].
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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007