Appeal No. 1998-2645 Page 4
Application No. 08/815,747
§ 112, second paragraph, but not the rejection of claims 1, 3,
4 and 10.
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).
In the final rejection (pp. 3-4) and in the answer (p.
3), the examiner set forth his rationale as to why claims 1
and 3 to 10 were considered to be indefinite.
The appellant's response to this rejection was an
argument as to why the term "high velocity" as recited in
claims 1 and 4 was not indefinite since the meaning thereof
would be understood by one skilled in the art from a reading
of the claim as a whole. Since we find ourselves in agreement
with the appellant on this issue, we reverse the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph. The appellant has not specifically
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007