Appeal No. 1998-0234
Application No. 08,406,752
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 38
through 41, 43 and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
After reviewing appellant's specification and the above
enumerated claims in light thereof, it is our opinion that the
scope and content of the subject matter embraced by
appellant's claims on appeal is reasonably clear and definite,
and fulfills the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. In our view, the defective language in appellant's
claims on appeal criticized by the examiner, in each instance,
is of such a minor nature that it does 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007