Appeal No. 1997-1416
Application 08/277,386
byte” to be indefinite because it is allegedly unclear whether
the initial or modified values are involved in the subtracting
step, and the claim language does not require the first most
significant byte to be smaller than the value of the second
most significant byte [answer, pages 3-4]. With respect to
claim 18, the examiner finds the subtracting step to be
unclear because there are not two translated bytes as claimed
[id., page 4]. With respect to claim 45, the examiner asserts
that the phrase “converting said first result” is indefinite
because some cases require converting the inverted first
result rather than the first result. Finally, the examiner
asserts that claim 46 is indefinite because the steps are not
related to the steps of claim 45 [id.]. Appellants argue that
the claims are definite and that the examiner is unnecessarily
requiring them to narrow the claim under the rubric of
indefiniteness [brief, page 15 and reply brief, page 2].
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
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007