Appeal No. 1999-1972 Page 5
Application No. 08/807,780
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). Thus, if the
scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those
skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. See Ex
parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1992).
With this as background, we turn to the specific
rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
made by the examiner. As set forth in the answer (pp. 7-8),
the examiner determined claim 11 to be indefinite since it was
"unclear what structure is being referred to as the 'noise
maker' which is inside the housing." The examiner questioned
whether the noise maker was a separate structure from the
material of the main housing. If so, the examiner stated that
"this would contradict claim 1."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007