Appeal No. 96-3781
Application No. 08/259,891
layer covering the solvent ink. The transfer finds utility as
being bonded to an elastomeric substrate, such as a tire, to
provide identifying markings thereon.
Appealed claims 1-5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Gartland in view of Knudsen.
In addition, claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 1-5
under § 112, second paragraph. According to the examiner, the
claimed expression "a solvent ink" is indefinite because "it
is not clear whether there is solvent still present on the
article" (page 3 of Answer).
It is well settled that in evaluating the definiteness of
claim language, the language must be read in light of the
specification as it would be by one of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971). In the present case, we agree with
appellant that when the claim language "a solvent ink" is read
in light of the specification, one of ordinary skill in the
art would readily understand that the language is defining a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007