Appeal No. 1997-0189
Application No. 07/983,118
the invention as set forth in claims 34-36, 39-41, and 51 . 3
Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claims 34-43, 50, and 51, the Examiner initially
asserts the lack of clarity in the claim language resulting
from the use of the terminology "pixel" and "window." In
apparently finding the words synonymous, the Examiner
questions the difference in meaning between "pixel" and
"window" as used in the claims. In a related contention, the
Examiner also asserts the indefiniteness of the language
"means for opening pre-selected windows" in claim 34.
The general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
3At page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner has indicated the
allowability of claims 37, 38, 42, 43, and 50 subject to being
rewritten to overcome the indefiniteness rejection under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007