Appeal No. 2000-2230 Page 6 Application No. 08/706,767 respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow. The indefiniteness rejection We will not sustain the rejection of claims 15 to 34 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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007