Appeal No. 1995-2785
Application No. 07/576,423
217 USPQ 804, 806 (PTO Bd. App. 1982):
It is by now well established that it is the
function of the descriptive portion of the specifi-
ation and not that of the claims to set forth
operable proportions and similar process parameters
and that claims are not rendered indefinite by the
absence of the recitation of such limitations.
[Citations omitted].
Furthermore, as stated in In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235,
169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971):
This first inquiry [under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph] is merely to determine whether the
claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particu-larity. It is here where the
definiteness of the language 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. [Footnote omitted].
Having carefully reviewed the statement of rejection, we find
no indication that the examiner analyzed appellants' claim
language in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
instant specification as it would be interpreted by a person
having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, must fall.
The rejection of claims 17 through 19, 26, and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite is reversed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007