Appeal No. 96-2833
Application 08/202,772
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of
appellants’ specification, the prior art and the prosecution
history, to fail to set out and circumscribe a particular area
with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
Moreover, in appellants’ only independent claim, the
“comprising” transition term opens the claim to elements other
than those recited. See In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210
USPQ 795, 802 (CCPA 1981). The examiner has not explained
why, with this transition term, the claims are not open to
including whatever conventional ingredients the examiner
considers to be required in a soap.
The examiner argues that “encapsulated” is indefinite
because, in the examiner’s view, appellants’ cleaning aid is
not encapsulated by the poly(vinyl alcohol) (answer, page 7).
As indicated above, the relevant question under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is whether the language of
appellants’ claims, including the word “encapsulated”,
satisfies the above-stated test for definiteness. The
examiner has not explained why appellants’ claim language
fails to do so.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007