Appeal No. 95-5103 Page 5
Application No. 08/074,303
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).
That is, claims are considered to be definite, as required by
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the
metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530
F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976). 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.
The examiner's focus during examination of claims for
compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is whether the claims meet the
threshold requirements of clarity and precision, not whether
more suitable language or modes of expression are available.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007