Appeal No. 1996-3284
Application 08/154,864
rejection. Appellant argues [brief, page 20] against an
enablement requirement instead of the written description
requirement used in the rejection. However, we, on our own,
have reviewed the substitute drawings and the added character
numerals [whose entry has been approved by the Examiner] for
the written description requirement and find that there is an
adequate written description for the claimed invention.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3 to 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
Claims 3, 4 and 9 have been rejected as being indefinite.
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
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007