Appeal No. 2000-0293 Page 3
Application No. 08/766,862
2, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed
March 10, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed August 4,
1999) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to the appellant's specification and claims, to the
applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected claims 1 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph. 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 making this
determination, 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007