Appeal No. 97-0226
Application No. 08/441,965
112, we must analyze the definiteness of the language employed
in claims not in a vacuum, but always in light of the
teachings of the prior art and the application disclosure as
it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level
of skill in the pertinent art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Angstadt, 537
F.2d 498, 501, 190 USPQ 214, 217 (CCPA 1976). The claims are
deemed definite so long as they reasonably apprise one of
ordinary skill in the art of their scope. In re Warmerdam, 33
F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We
are mindful that the examiner has the initial burden of
demonstrating indefiniteness of the claims. In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The examiner initially argues (Answer, page 5) that
"[t]he linking bonds for the bisacrylamide and
bismethacrylamide R groups are not shown in claim 9."
4
Although the linking bonds for two of the four R groups are
4
not shown in claim 9, we are of the view that one possessing
ordinary skill in the art would have known that such linking
bonds are present in those R groups. The presence of such
4
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007