Appeal No. 1995-1539
Application No. 07/950,388
employed must be analyzed -- not in a vacuum, but
always in light of the teachings of the prior art
and of the particular application disclosure as it
would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary
level of skill in the pertinent art. [Emphasis ours;
footnote omitted.]
Applying these precedents to the expressions criticized by the
examiner, we are convinced that claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are not
indefinite.
The examiner, for example, criticizes the use of the
expression “composition of matter” in claim 1. See Answer,
pages 4-6. However, it is clear to us that the claimed
“composition of matter” refers to those products resulting
from the claimed process steps. Although the terminology is
very broad, breadth is not indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441
F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (1971).
The examiner also criticizes the claim language as
convoluted and hard to understand. See Answer, page 5. The
examiner, however, does not specify any particular claim
language
or phrases as being indefinite. Nor does the record indicate that
the examiner has considered claim language in light of “the
teachings of the prior art and of the application disclosure”.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007