Appeal No. 1998-0644
Application 08/637,588
We consider first the rejection of claim 24 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner’s rejection
indicates that, in the examiner’s view, claim 24 does not
correspond in scope to what appellants regard as their
invention [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellants respond that claim
24 sets forth exactly what they consider to be their invention
and that claim 24 unambiguously informs those skilled in the
art what is being claimed [brief, pages 4-5].
The general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co., v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
We agree with appellants that the artisan having
considered the specification of this application would have no
difficulty ascertaining the scope of the invention recited in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007