Appeal No. 1997-3437
Application 08/315,740
Examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed Appellant's arguments
against the rejection as set forth in the brief.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
not proper. Accordingly, we reverse.
Next, we treat the various rejections individually.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
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.
The Examiner's focus during examination of claims for
compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is whether the claims meet the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007