Appeal No. 97-2554
Application No. 08/164,112
be less obvious that this rule also applies in the reverse, making
an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of
uncertainty. See In re Cohn, 58 CCPA [996], [438] F.2d [989], 169
USPQ 95 (1971), In re Hammack, 57 CCPA 1225, 427 F.2d 1378, 166
USPQ 204 (1970).
The language of interest in the present case is the
recitation in claim 1 of “applying ... a surface-active agent
having a hydrophilic/lipophilic balance (HLB) of less than
about 12 in an amount effective to reduce urine odor.”
Appellant asserts that his claims “recite the use of a
surface-active agent that is effective in reducing the odor of
urine.” However, we agree with the examiner that they are not
so limited, as is evident from the above-quoted portion of
claim 1.
Nevertheless, assuming that the claims are limited to the
use of a surface-active agent, having an HLB less than about
12, that is “effective to reduce urine odor,” the claims must
still be read in light of the disclosure in order to analyze
the definiteness of their language. In re Moore, supra. In
determining whether a particular surfactant is “effective to
reduce urine odor,” one finds on page 13, lines 3 to 7, the
criterion quoted above, i.e., a surface-active agent “is
considered effective to reduce the odor of urine” if the test
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007