Appeal No. 1997-1431
Application No. 08/323,976
same manner to the examiner’s position that the instant claims
lack utility for the purpose recited in the preamble of the
claims.
For a consideration of a rejection made under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, 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 have read the specification and considered the
appealed claims in light of the specification, and we have no
difficulty understanding the metes and bounds of the claimed
invention. Therefore, the rejection of claims 5-17 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 5-17 is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007