Appeal No. 96-3258
Application 08/241,875
Under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, it is to
be noted that to comply with the requirements of the cited
paragraph, 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 and the teachings of the
prior art as it would be by the artisan. Note In re Johnson,
558 F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977); 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).
Our own study of representative claim 4 in a vacuum leads
us to the same questions raised by the examiner at pages 3 and
4 of the Answer.
When we study the subject matter of representative claim
4 on appeal in light of the disclosed invention, as we must in
accordance with the above noted precedent, those problems and
questions raised by the examiner at pages 3 and 4 of the
Answer are in fact amplified rather than eliminated.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007