Appeal No. 1997-0534
Application 08/171,904
The Examiner also contends [Answer, page 3] that the
phrase “the total” in independent claims 1 and 7, and hence in
the dependent claims, lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Appellants argue [Brief, page 7] that “one of ordinary skill
would understand this ... must be relative to the ‘total’
weight.”
We first review the general requirements within the
meaning of 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.
The Examiner's focus during examination of claims for
compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007