Appeal No. 1996-0427
Application 08/210,224
pulses, said pulses increasing in length monotonically during
said sequence." On page 9 of the brief, Appellants argue
that this claim language is definite when read in light of the
specification on pages 9, 10 and 13 and in light of the struc-
ture shown in Figure 5.
Analysis of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
should begin with the determination of whether claims set out
and circumscribe the particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity; it is here where definiteness
of the language must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always
in light of teachings of the disclosure as it would be inter-
preted by one possessing ordinary skill in the art. In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977),
citing In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
(1971). Furthermore, our reviewing court points out that a
claim which is of such breadth that it reads on subject matter
disclosed in the prior art is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
rather than under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007