Appeal No. 97-1079
Application 08/562,471
of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kummerlin in view of either Lamp or Schwarting.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we make the
following new rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellant regards as the invention. The purpose of the
second paragraph of § 112 is to provide those who would endeavor,
in future enterprises, to approach the area circumscribed by the
claims of a patent, with adequate notice demanded by due process
of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine
the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the
possibility of infringement and dominance. In re Hammack, 427
F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). Moreover, in
order to satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph of
§ 112, a claim must accurately define the invention in the
technical sense. See In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1366, 178
USPQ 486, 492-93 (CCPA 1973). In addition, in determining the
definitness of a claim, the terminology employed therein may not
be read apart from and independent of the supporting disclosure
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007