Appeal No. 1998-1942 Page 7
Application No. 08/530,254
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 41 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they 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).
The examiner's reasons for rejecting method claim 41 as
being indefinite are set forth on page 4 of the answer. In
summary, the examiner believed that the scope of the claim was
unclear due to the structural features recited therein.
Specifically, the examiner determined that the claim was
unclear as to the limitation imparted by the language
"providing."
We agree with the appellants (Brief, p. 25) that the
rejection as set forth by the examiner is contrary to USPTO
practice since recitation of structure in a method claim is
common. Moreover, in this instance, the claimed "providing"
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007