Appeal No. 97-0514
Application 08/345,114
analyzer, there is no clear distinction between the claimed
analyzer and processor.
The test for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is
whether the claim language, when read by a
person of ordinary skill in the art in
light of the specification, describes the
subject matter with sufficient precision
that the bounds of the claimed subject
matter are distinct.
In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396, 186 USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA
1975). Applying this test in the present case it would seem,
first, that
the indefiniteness found by the examiner would be applicable
only to claims which recite both an analyzer and a processor,
i.e., claims 7 to 16. The scope of the system claims which
recite an analyzer but not a processor (claims 1 to 6) is not
indistinct, because the term "analyzer" would clearly cover
all analyzers, regardless of whether they incorporated a
processor or not, as long as they complied with the other
claimed limitations. Likewise, the scope of method claims 17
to 27 is distinct, since they do not recite an analyzer or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007