Appeal No. 1997-3161
Application No. 08/450,553
of the instant disclosure. While some experimentation by
artisans may be necessary in order to practice the invention,
we find that such experimentation would not be undue.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 6-9,
43, 45, 46, and 51-57 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112.
We now turn to a consideration of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 6-9, 43, 45, 46, and 51-57 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. The general rule is that a claim
must set outand 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 of the claim language depends on whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed in
light of the specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial
Crating & Packing, Inc.,
731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
It is noted, initially, that the Examiner’s rationale in
making this rejection is linked to the rationale relied on in
making the lack of enablement rejection discussed supra. In
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007