Appeal No. 2000-2294
Application No. 08/511,425
(CCPA 1973). In our opinion, under the factual situation
presented in the present case, Appellants have satisfied the
statutory written description requirement because they were
clearly in possession of the claimed invention at the time of
filing of the application. Therefore, the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 69-78 based on the “written description”
requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not
sustained.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness
rejection of all of the appealed claims under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The general rule is that a
claim must set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity when read in
light of the disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re
Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
Acceptability of the claim language depends on whether one of
ordinary skill in the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007