Appeal No. 1997-0258
Application No. 08/251,052
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
specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
We note that, although the Examiner indicated on page 2
of the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer dated July 25, 1996 that
the 35 U.S.C. § 112. , second paragraph, rejection of claim 12
was being maintained, the Examiner also indicated that the
amendment after final rejection filed along with Appellants’
Supplemental Reply Brief on July 12, 1996 was to be entered.
This amendment amended the language of claim 12 to be
identical with the language of claim 6, the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of which had been previously
withdrawn by the Examiner. Notwithstanding the apparent
contradiction in the Examiner’s treatment of claims 6 and 12
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007