Appeal No. 1998-2240 Page 4
Application No. 08/443,058
It is the examiner’s position that independent claims 1
and 13 are indefinite because the phrase “shaped to closely
overlay” does not “require that the cover is overlaid [sic]
the sheet,” and because the phrase “readily removable” is
unclear. We do
not agree.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims
to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
In making this determination, the definiteness of the language
employed in the claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but
always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted
by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent
art. Id. We do not understand the reasoning behind the
examiner’s problem with the phrase “shaped to closely
overlay.” This is only a part of the language describing the
cover which, in full, reads “shaped to closely overlay said
sheet when said sheet is positioned upon said sphere or
hemisphere.” From our perspective, the language of the claim,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007