Appeal No. 97-0925 Page 5
Application No. 08/328,159
the rejection of such a claim lies under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, not the first paragraph thereof. Accordingly,
we will treat the basis for this rejection as having been made
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the next section
of this decision. Since the examiner has not advanced any
reasoning inconsistent with enablement, we reverse the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 through 9, 11 and 13 through 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to provide an
enabling disclosure.
The indefiniteness issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3,
5 through 9, 11 and 13 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which the appellant regards as the
invention.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). In making this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007