Appeal No. 96-4149
Application 08/276,436
application disclosure as it would be interpreted by
one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art.
Moreover, no claim may be read apart from and independent of
its supporting disclosure, and claim language which otherwise
appears to be definite, may take on an unreasonable degree of
uncertainty when read in light of the supporting
specification. In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95, 98
(CCPA 1971); In re Moore, 439 F.2d at 1235 n.2, 169 USPQ at
238 n.2.
For the reasons stated in our procedural reversal of the
standing rejections of claims 1 to 5 and 7 as being
anticipated by Daubenspeck, and claims 1 and 4 as being
anticipated by Mayr, we do not believe that the language of
the appealed claims provides adequate notice to the public of
what the claims cover to enable an accurate determination of
the boundaries of
protection involved. Specifically, the claims do not allow
one of ordinary skill in the art to determine with any
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007