Appeal No. 1998-0483
Application No. 08/543,840
The examiner in rejecting claims 1 through 6 and 12
through 18 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
points out that "[t]he language 'fast acting adhesive' which
appears in each of independent claims 1 and 12 renders the
claims indefinite for being overly subjective and not being
representative of any definite type of adhesive" (final
rejection, page 2).
Appellant's response argues that the wording of each of
independent claims 1 and 12 describes how the fast acting
adhesive is used, and in doing so satisfies the Section 112
requirement that a claim reasonably apprise those of skill in
the art of its scope (brief, pages 7-8).
A decision as to claim indefiniteness requires a
determination of whether those skilled in the art would
understand what is claimed. See Amgen Inc. v. Chugai
Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1030
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
We note that although the present specification does not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007