Appeal No. 97-0943 Page 5
Application No. 08/232,502
According to the examiner (final rejection, pp. 2-4), it
is not clear that claim 1 is claiming the method disclosed in
the specification. Specifically, the examiner questioned why
the concentration being determined in step C of claim 1 is
based on the standardized rate range of infusion, not the
maximum rate of infusion as set forth in the specification.
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).
Our review of claim 1 reveals that step C of claim 1
(i.e., "determining a required concentration of said at least
one drug based on a patient's weight, said dosage rate, amount
of said solution, and standardized rate range of infusion")
fails to set forth the metes and bounds of the claimed
invention with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity for the following reasons.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007