Ex parte KATO - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1999-2454                                       Page 5           
          Application No. 08/656,106                                                  


                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellant's specification and                  
          claims, and to the respective positions articulated by the                  
          appellant and the examiner.  As a consequence of our review,                
          we make the determinations which follow.                                    


               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.                                                                   


               The examiner's focus during examination of claims for                  
          compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C.               









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007