Appeal No. 2000-0287 Page 9
Application No. 08/663,300
Rejection (3)
The examiner has rejected claims 11, 14 and 18 on the basis that the terminology "band-
like" renders the claims indefinite. In particular, the examiner queries how the regions or
portions recited in these claims are "like" a band (answer, page 6).
Initially, we note that the purpose of the second paragraph of Section 112 is to basically
insure, with a reasonable degree of particularity, an adequate notification of the metes and
bounds of what is being claimed. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204,
208 (CCPA 1970). When viewed in light of this authority, we cannot agree with the examiner
that the metes and bounds of claims 11, 14 and 18 cannot be determined because of the alleged
deficiency noted by the examiner. A degree of reasonableness is necessary. As the court
stated in In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971), the
determination of whether the claims of an application satisfy the requirements of the second
paragraph of Section 112 is
merely to determine whether the claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. It is
here where the definiteness of language employed 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. [Emphasis ours; footnote omitted.]
While it is true that the addition of the term "like" or "type" may, in some instances,
render unclear the scope of an otherwise clear claim, that is not the case here. The appellant's
specification describes "band-like" securement regions which extend transversely with respect
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007