Appeal No. 96-1943
Application No. 08/147,008
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-16, 43-46, 57-61 and 66 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-16, 43-46, 57-61 and
66 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the examiner on
pages 5 and 6 of Paper No. 23 and pages 3-6 of the answer sets
forth a very lengthy list of recitations appearing in the
claims which purportedly renders them indefinite. Having
carefully reviewed each recitation identified in the lengthy
list, we will not support the examiner's position.
The legal standard for indefiniteness is whether a claim
reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope.
In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759
(Fed. Cir. 1994). A degree of reasonableness is necessary.
As the court stated in In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169
USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971), the determination of whether the
claims of an application satisfy the requirements of the
second paragraph of § 112 is
merely to determine whether the claims do, in fact,
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
It is here where the definiteness of language
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007