Appeal No. 1995-3690 Page 5
Application No. 08/000,342
dependent claims and those in the base
claim is not stated and unclear. The
limitation in the dependent claims are
totally out of context from the base claim.
. . . each limitation in a claim should be
linked to other limitations in the claim
and that reciting a limitation with no
linking element or operation leaves the
claims indefinite. [examiner’s answer at
page 3].
The appellant argues that:
The explanation of the wording deemed
unclear in claims 5 and 7 is in Appellant’s
specification. It is Appellant’s
contention that the claims rest upon those
teachings, and, further, that they need not
recite the results of these method steps.
[brief at page 7].
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 claims 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. Id.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007