Appeal No. 98-0140
S.N. 08/401761
an oxytitanium phthalocyanine crystal (of Suzuki) and an a-
titanyl phthalocyanine crystal (of Fujimaki) in connection
with providing comparative data presented in a Rule 132
declaration. We therefore strongly disagree with
appellants’ statement made on page 2 of their Reply Brief.
This declaration does not state that “the examples of the
application employed CuKa radiation” as stated by
appellants. Rather, we agree with the examiner’s statement
made on page 8 of the Answer that the declaration concerns
X-ray diffraction patterns of prior art titanium
phthalocyanine crystals, not appellants’ titanium
phthalocyanine crystals. Therefore, this declaration is
irrelevant with respect to evidencing whether appellants in
fact utilized CuKa radiation in obtaining a maximum X-ray
diffraction peak for any one of their titanium
phthalocyanine crystals of their specification.
Turning now to the law applicable to the issue at
hand, 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2, provides that “[t]he
specification shall conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
subject matter which applicant regards as his invention.”
This requires only that the claims set out and circumscribe
a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
Definiteness of claim language must be analyzed, not
in a vacuum, but in light of:
(A) The content of the particular application
disclosure;
(B) The teachings of the prior art; and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007