Appeal No. 1996-1644
Application No. 07/933,147
that only the examiner’s § 103 rejections are well founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain only the examiner’s § 103
rejections for substantially those reasons set forth in the
Answer. We reverse the examiner’s § 112, second paragraph,
rejection for those reasons set forth by appellants in their
Brief2 and Reply Brief. We add the following for emphasis and
completeness.
INDEFINITENESS
The purpose of the second paragraph of Section 112 is to
basically insure, with a reasonable degree of particularity, an
adequate notification of the metes and bounds of what is being
claimed. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208
(CCPA 1970). As the court stated in In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971), the determination
of whether the claims of an application satisfy the
requirements of the second paragraph of Section 112 is
merely to determine whether the claims do, in fact,
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
It is here where the definiteness of language
2Our reference to the Brief is to the Supplemental Brief
dated October 27, 1997.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007