Appeal No. 1997-2026
Application 08/317,108
We are of the view that Appellants have met the
enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
The Examiner has not presented separate arguments
regarding the rejection under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112. We assume that the Examiner views the claims as
indefinite for the same reasons as stated for the lack of
enablement rejection.
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.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007