Appeal No. 96-0285
Application 07/900,528
unclear, hence the claims are
indefinite in scope.
In claim 1, step a, claim 2, step a,
claim 10, step a, claim 12, step 1,
and claim 13, step 4, the scope of
“portions” or “portion” is unclear and
not understood.
Which portions?
In claims 1, 2, and 10, the scope of
“partially” is unclear and not
understood.
How much is partially?
In claim 2, the scope of “further
portions” is unclear and not
understood. Which portions are
further portions?
Appellants make several arguments that the criticized
terms are perfectly clear to the artisan when read in light of
the specification, and the examiner’s objections relate to the
breadth of the claims rather than to the indefiniteness of the
claims [brief, pages 7-11, first reply brief, pages 3-5].
The general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007