Appeal No. 2000-2288
Application No. 08/960,576
know of no requirement that alternative method steps like
those in claim 7 on appeal must be "equivalent" in the sense
urged by the examiner (answer, pages 8-9). 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 possessing the
ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. See In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17, 194 USPQ 187, 194 n.17
(CCPA 1977). When that standard of evaluation is applied to
the language employed in claim 7 on appeal, we are of the
opinion that the claim sets out and circumscribes a particular
area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity,
and that one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly
understand what is claimed. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the examiner's rejection of appellant's claim 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007