Appeal No. 1996-3623
Application No. 08/114,546
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
The examiner has rejected claims 1-32 asserting that the claims do not particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which appellants regard as the invention.
The examiner generally asserts that the terms “view point” and “frame buffer” are vague
and indefinite. The examiner further asserts that each term “contradicts how the term is
defined and used in the prior art.” (See answer at pages 4 and 5.) Appellants argue that
the meaning is clear and not in contradiction to the use in the prior art. We agree with
appellants. Analysis of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, should begin with the
determination of whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. It is here where the definiteness of the
language employed must be analyzed -- not in a vacuum, but always in light of the
teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007