Appeal No. 1998-0240
Application 08/522,479
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and the examiner
and agree with appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well founded. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejections.
1. The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
The examiner has rejected claims 5 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which appellant’s regard as the
invention. Specifically, the examiner has taken issue with the terminology “between about 0.005% and
2.0%” in claims 5 and 12 and the language “effective to increase the level of crimp within said fiber” as
recited in claim 9.
For a lack of definiteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the proper
standard for definiteness is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope.
See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Further,
reviewing a claim for definiteness requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art could
ascertain what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. As discussed below, based
upon our reading of the claims and the specification as originally filed, the disputed claim language
reasonably apprises those skilled in the art of the scope of the claimed invention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007