Appeal No. 1997-0359
Application No. 08/173,485
Appellants’ position [brief, pages 7 and 8] that “degree of
supersaturation” is well defined in the specification. The
degree of supersat-uration is defined and explained in the
specification at pages 7 and 10 through 14. Furthermore,
Appellants have provided examples 1 through 7 showing how the
invention has been put to the practical use. Therefore, we do
not sustain the lack of enablement rejection of claims 14
through 21 and 23 through 34.
35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
Claims 14 through 21 and 23 through 34 are rejected for
failing to particularly point out the subject matter of the
invention [answer, page 2]. The Examiner asserts [id. 3] that
these claims are unduly broad and indefinite.
We note that the legal standard for definiteness is
whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art
of its scope. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31
USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
At the outset, we note that breadth of the claims is not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007