Appeal No. 98-2086
Application 08/539,353
The second paragraph of § 112 requires claims to set out
and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008,
1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). In determining whether
this standard is met, the definiteness of the language
employed in the claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but
always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted
by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent
art. Id.
In the present case, the appellant's disclosure indicates
that the aperture and "L" shaped member recited in claim 3 and
the first and second mating cylinder members which form a
hinge means recited in parent claim 1 are mutually exclusive
characteristics of different locking apparatus embodiments.
The recitation of both in claim 3 by virtue of its dependency
from claim 1 renders the scope of claims 3 and 6 unclear. 2
2 Although the following informalities are not serious
enough in and of themselves to render the involved claims
indefinite, they are nonetheless deserving of correction in
the event of further prosecution before the examiner. The
preambles of dependent claims 2, 5 and 6 ("The locking means .
. .) is inconsistent with the preamble and ultimately recited
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007