Appeal No. 97-3555 Page 5
Application No. 08/534,692
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 28 and 30 through 32 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 appellants
regard as the invention.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes
and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner determined (answer, p. 5) that it was unclear
whether the food dish or pie tin itself is also being claimed
along with the container. We do not agree.
We turn first to independent method claim 28 which recites
as the first step thereof "placing a food dish within a receiving
shell." This clearly incorporates the food dish into the claimed
subject matter. Thus, claim 28 and its dependent claims (i.e.,
claims 30 to 32) are not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007