Appeal No. 1997-2455
Application 08/318,235
(CCPA 1977)(citing In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169
USPQ 236, 238 (1971)). "The legal standard for definiteness
is whether a claim reasonably appraises those of skill in the
art of its scope." In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31
USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
On page 3 of the answer, the Examiner states that claims
77, 78 and 83 are incomplete and vague. The Examiner argues
that claiming an apparatus does not further define or limit
the method claims.
Appellants argue on page 12 of the brief, that these
claims were prepared intending to create “means for practicing
the process” linking claims as identified in MPEP § 806.05(e).
On page 23 of the brief, Appellants assert that these claims
are in a shorthand form of means-plus-function where the
functions are the steps of the method claim.
We find claims 77, 78 and 83 to be definite as they
reasonably appraise those of skill in the art of their scope.
We find that the scope of claim 77 includes any device which
performs the method of claim 52. We note that claim 77 has a
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007