Appeal No. 97-3987 Page 5
Application No. 08/387,047
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 4
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.
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) that the lack of
antecedent basis for "said liquids" rendered the claim
indefinite.
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 making this
determination, the definiteness of the language employed in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007