Appeal No. 99-0179
Application 08/612,385
§ 1.196(b).
Claims 1 and 8, and claims 2 through 7, 9 through 13 and
21 by virtue of their dependency therefrom, are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the
appellant regards as the invention.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 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. Under this analysis, claims which
appear to be indefinite on their face may become definite when
read in light of the specification disclosure or prior art
teachings. By the same token, claims which appear to be
definite on their face may take on an unreasonable degree of
uncertainty when read in light of the specification disclosure
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007