Appeal No. 1998-0200
Application No. 08/698,193
Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The inquiry is merely
to determine whether the claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
(CCPA 1971). The definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed -- not in a vacuum, but 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.
Here, we are convinced that an artisan would be reasonably apprised as to the subject matter
covered by the instant claims in light of the specification. Contrary to the stated rationale for rejection,
Claim 12 does recite how the listed elements are placed to function as a magnetic head. For example,
the claim recites “a magnetoresistive element on the flux guiding element, a peripheral area of the
magnetoresistive element overlying an edge of the flux-guiding element.” The claim further recites “an
intermediate layer of an electrical insulating material separating the magnetoresistive element and the flux
guiding element.” Although the claim is broadly drawn, there are definite interrelationships set forth with
regard to physical arrangement of the claimed elements. As disclosed, the particular arrangement
claimed is necessary for the proper function of the magnetic head.
We therefore do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph of Claims
2-6 and 9-12.
The rejection over Jeffers
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007