Appeal No. 97-3555 Page 7
Application No. 08/534,692
tin is suspended above the floor of the receiving shell when
seated within the receiving shell. This limitation, in our view,
"breathes life and meaning into the claim" and is "essential to
point out the invention defined by the claim" for the same
reasons stated above with respect to claim 1. Thus, it is our
determination that claim 26 incorporates the pie tin into the
claimed subject matter and defines the metes and bounds of a
claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. Accordingly, claim 26 and its dependent claim 27
are not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Lastly, we turn to independent claim 15 which recites a
monolithic container for stabilizing a food dish. It is our
determination that the references to the food dish in claim 15
merely recite the intended use of the container since claim 15
does not depend on the food dish for completeness (as does claim
1). Thus, it is our determination that claim 15 does not
incorporate the food dish into the claimed subject matter and
defines the metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. Accordingly,
claim 15 and its dependent claims (i.e., claims 16 to 25) 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