Appeal No. 2001-0291 Page 4
Application No. 08/772,559
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
The legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim
reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope.
See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759
(Fed. Cir. 1994). In determining whether this standard is
met, 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. In re Johnson,
558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
According to the examiner, the claims are indefinite
because they are "generally narrative in form and replete with
indefinite and functional or operational language" (final
rejection, p. 2). In particular, the examiner objects to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007