Appeal No. 96-0088
Application No. 08/038,426
190 USPQ 214, 217 (CCPA 1976), In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232,
1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238, (CCPA 1971).
The legal standard for definiteness under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether a claim reasonably
apprises those of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. In
re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). The first inquiry is to determine whether the
claims set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
The examiner lists several different terms regarded as
being indefinite. Additionally certain limitations omitted
from the claimed subject matter are said to result in claims
which are indefinite. These terms include, “three way
catalytic conversion,” “noble metals,” “non noble metals,”
“ligand”, “ionic structure or chemical names.” The examiner’s
position is that these terms are broader than the disclosure,
Answer, page 8. However, breadth itself is not indefinite.
In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA
1970). The examiner has failed to establish with respect to
any one of these terms or any omission of limitations that one
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007