Appeal No. 97-1656 Page 5
Application No. 08/314,26
The appellant states that the claims are “separately
patentable.” (Appeal Br. at 5.) He also explains why the
claims are separately patentable. (Id. at 6-13.) Therefore,
we find claims 1-6 to stand or fall separately; we will
consider the claims separately.
Definiteness of Claims 1 and 2
We begin our consideration of the definiteness of claims
1 and 2 by noting that the test for the definiteness of a
claim is whether one skilled in the art would understand the
bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification.
If the claim read in light of the specification would
reasonably apprise one so skilled of the scope of the
invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112 demands no more. Miles Labs., Inc.
v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). Furthermore, a claim should not be denied solely
because of the type of language used to define the subject
matter for which patent protection is sought. In re
Swinehart, 439 F.2d. 210, 212 n.4, 169 USPQ 226, 228 n.4 (CCPA
1971). With this in mind, we analyze the examiner’s
rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007