Appeal No. 2000-2081
Application 08/656,082
claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 22, 27 through 29 and 31
through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. After
reviewing appellants’ specification and the above enumerated
claims in light thereof, and also in light of appellants’
arguments in their brief and reply brief, it is our opinion
that the scope and content of the subject matter embraced by
appellants’ claims on appeal is reasonably clear and definite,
and fulfills the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. In our view, the examiner's criticism of the
language used in appellants’ claims on appeal, in each
instance, goes to the breadth of the claims and not to
indefiniteness. It is well settled that breadth alone is not
to be equated with indefiniteness and that
in determining whether a claim sets out and circumscribes a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity, the definiteness of the language employed in
the claim 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007