Appeal No. 97-1979
Application 08/278,335
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
in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior
art and of the particular application disclosure as it would
be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill
in the pertinent art. Id.
Claims 15 and 16 recite, respectively, that the balloon
has an extending nose portion and a depending keel. These
recitations are unclear and confusing when read in light of
the underlying disclosure which indicates that it is the kite,
not the balloon, which includes the extending nose portion and
depending keel (see, for example, page 2 in the
specification).
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007