Appeal No. 1998-0241 Page 4
Application No. 08/465,373
The indefiniteness rejection
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires that claims define the metes and
bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In
re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
In rejecting claim 10 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner's
position is that the metes and bounds of the term "irregularly shaped" are not clear. In
particular, the examiner questions whether "irregularly shaped" requires that the fiber be made
of two compositions and urges that such a definition would be contrary to any ordinary and
customary usage of this terminology (answer, page 4). The term "irregular" is generally4
understood to mean not conforming to established rule; not straight or even; not uniform in
shape, design or proportion or uneven in occurrence or succession (Webster's New World
Dictionary, Third College Edition (Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988)). In order to determine,
within the context of the appellants' invention, what types of fibers fall within the scope of
"irregularly shaped," we have reviewed the appellants' specification for guidance as to the
definitions of regularly shaped and irregularly shaped.
The appellants' specification, on pages 12 and 13, states that the present invention is
preferably practiced with long, "irregularly shaped fibers, such as the bi-component glass fibers
4We, like the examiner, observe that the phrase "irregularly shaped" would not, in accordance with the
ordinary and customary usage of these terms, convey or imply any limitation as to composition.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007