Appeal No. 98-3291
Application 08/534,705
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Looking first at the rejection of claims 5 through 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, after reviewing
appellant’s specification and drawings, and claim 5 in light
thereof, it is
our opinion that the scope and content of the subject matter
embraced by claim 5 on appeal is reasonably clear and
definite, and fulfills the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second
paragraph, that it provide those who would endeavor, in future
enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claim,
with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so
that they may more readily and accurately determine the
boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility
of infringement and dominance. See, In re Hammack, 427 F.2d
1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). In that regard, we
agree with appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have readily associated the recited “said tree stand”
found in lines 3, 6-7 and 9 of claim 5 with the “stand for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007