Appeal No. 97-1092
Application 08/412,491
artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the
later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or
absence of literal support in the specification for the claim
language. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089,
1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In the present case, the disclosure of
the application as originally filed would not reasonably
convey to the artisan that the appellant had possession at
that time of a kitchen faucet comprising a “temperature
control valve” and a “flexible” conduit as is now recited in
independent claim 1.
Claim 1, and claims 4 through 14 which depend therefrom,
also are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter 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 determining whether this standard is met, the definiteness
of the language employed in the claims must be analyzed, not
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007