Appeal No. 1999-1037
Application 08/804,284
precision and particularity, 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. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193
(CCPA 1977). In addition, claims must accurately define the
invention. In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1365, 178 USPQ 486,
492 (CCPA 1973). The above discussed lack of descriptive
support in appellant’s disclosure for the subject matter
recited in claim 11 renders the scope and accuracy of claims
11, 12 and 15 unclear when they are read, as they are required
to be, in light of the underlying disclosure.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by U.S. Patent 4,200,310 to Carney, of record.
Carney ‘310 discloses an energy absorbing system 10
comprising a plurality of collapsible barrels 16 mounted to an
object 12, which may be either a highway service vehicle or a
stationary energy absorbing barrier (column 4, lines 13-16;
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007