Appeal No. 1997-2937
Application No. 08/420,562
whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art
of its scope.” In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d
1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In other words, the inquiry is
whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular area
with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity, taken
in view of the teachings of the prior art and the application
disclosure as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Angstadt, supra; In re Moore, supra. We note that
the examiner has advanced no reasons or evidence as to why one
of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the
scope of the claims (Answer, pages 3-4). Therefore we
determine that the examiner has not met the initial burden of
proof. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of the claims on
appeal under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 cannot be
sustained.
Once having determined that the subject matter defined by
the claims is particular and definite, the analysis turns to
the first paragraph of § 112 to determine whether the
disclosure is enabling for the scope of the claimed subject
matter. In re Angstadt, supra; In re Moore, supra. When
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007