Appeal No. 2001-1284 Page 5
Application No. 08/792,765
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. Thus, if the
scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those
skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. See Ex
parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992).
The first basis for this rejection was that it was unclear
with regard to claims 1 to 17, 20 to 22 and 28 as to whether the
appellant was claiming the combination of the cooler apparatus
and the bottle or the subcombination of the cooler apparatus. We
do not agree with this basis for this rejection for the reasons
set forth in the brief (pp. 10-11). In that regard, it is our
view that those skilled in the art would understand claims 1 to
17, 20 to 22 and 28 to be clearly directed to the cooler
apparatus, not the combination of the cooler apparatus and
bottle.
The second basis for this rejection was that the term "quick
plunge" as used in claims 28 and 29 is unclear. We agree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007