Ex parte TAYALI et al. - Page 6




          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  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007