Appeal No. 1998-3006 Page 5 Application No. 08/586,977 The indefiniteness issues We sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976). In addition, patentability is not the only consideration requiring the claim language to be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971), the court held that with respect to the second paragraph of § 112, the inquiry is "to determine whether the claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity." In In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970), the court specifically related the matter of infringement to the issue of indefiniteness, stating as follows:Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007