Appeal No. 2001-0595
Application No. 09/079,293
defects in the language in appellant's claim 6 are of such a
minor nature that they do not create confusion or uncertainty
which rises to the level of indefiniteness. It is well
settled that 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 6 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. Like appellant, we view the recitation in
paragraph 2 of claim 6 as providing ample antecedent basis for
the recitations of "said messages" and "said signatures" in
paragraphs 5 and 6 of the claim.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007