Appeal No. 2000-1337
Application No. 08/955,002
It is to be noted that applicant appears to be
using some of the structure from the embodiment of
Figs. 1-3 in the embodiment of Fig. 4 and it is not
clear from the description and drawings how the
burner head 20 of Figs. 1-3 with “ports” 32 and 38
mate[s] with the surrounding structure to provide
“bypass ports
120" and bypass passages 112 between the body 20 and
base 50 as set forth on page 10 of the
specification. The bypass passage 112 in Fig. 4 as
illustrated also appears to be open laterally to the
atmosphere [examiner’s answer, Paper No. 15, pages 3
through 5].
The appellant counters that one of ordinary skill in the
art would readily understand the claim limitations at issue
when read in light of their ordinary and accustomed meanings
and the underlying specification (see the main and reply
briefs, Paper Nos. 14 and 16).
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 determining whether this standard is met, 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007