Appeal No. 1996-1243
Application No. 08/226,224
path” in line 15 of the claim [answer, page 4]. With respect
to each of the independent claims on appeal, the examiner
asserts that the claims are missing essential elements of the
invention and do not properly correspond to the disclosed
invention [id., pages 4-5].
Appellants respond that the appealed claims correspond to
what they consider to be their invention and that there is no
ambiguity or indefiniteness in the claim language [brief, page
5; reply brief, page 1].
The general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co., v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
The lack of antecedent basis objections of the examiner
are clearly improper. It is not always necessary that literal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007