Appeal No. 1997-0031
Application 07/987,669
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
determining whether this standard is met, 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.
According to the examiner, independent claim 17, and
claims 18 through 21, 24 and 25 which depend therefrom, are
indefinite for a variety of reasons.
To begin with, the examiner considers the phrase “a
drying silk-screen printing oil preparation” in claim 17
(clause a) to be indefinite because it is not clear, and the
specification does not define, what this preparation is (see
page 4 in the main answer). Page 27 of the appellant’s
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007