Appeal No. 1999-2537 Page 6
Application No. 08/619,269
to 27 to decide the appeal on each of the above-noted
rejections. See page 3 of the appellants' brief.
The indefiniteness issue
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, 9,
11, 12, 15 to 18, 22, 23 and 25 to 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
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 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007