Appeal No. 96-2298
Application 08/147,179
and dominance.
Additionally, claims are considered to be definite, as
required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they
define the metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re
Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976). It
must also be kept in mind
that claim language is read in light of the specification as
it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
We turn now to the matters of concern to the examiner as
raised in the rejection (answer, page 3).
It is evident that the examiner views the location of the
spacer and seal as indefinite. The examiner inquires as to
how the seal and spacer are located relative to each other.
Further, the examiner questions whether the seal is the same
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007