Appeal No. 97-3071
Application 08/484,729
(Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29
USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, we are of the
opinion that the appellant has failed to adequately describe
the necessary structure and acts for the reason we have stated
above with respect to the rejection of these claims under the
first paragraph of § 112 and, for this reason, claims 1-6, 8-
13 and 15 fail to comply with the requirements of the second
paragraph of
§ 112.
With respect to claim 7 (which is not drafted in a means
or step plus function format), we observe that the purpose of
the second paragraph of § 112 is to provide those who would
endeavor, in future enterprises, to approach the area circum-
scribed 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,
no claim may be read apart from and independent of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007