Appeal No. 1997-0646
Application 08/383,667
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have
been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light
of appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Claims are
analyzed not in a vacuum but, rather, in light of the
application disclosure and the prior art. See In re Kroekel,
504 F.2d 1143, 1146, 183 USPQ 610, 612 (CCPA 1974); In re
Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238-39 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner argues that the term “charge control agent”
appears to overlap the term “stabilizer” in appellants’ claim
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007