Appeal No. 1998-0408
Application No. 08/176,861
The purpose of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprises, to
approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent,
with adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that
they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries
of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of
infringement and dominance. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378,
1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, the legal
standard for definiteness under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of
skill in the art of its scope. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d
1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Claims 1-12 and 23-27
With regard to claims 1-12 and 23-27, the examiner's
position, as stated on page 3 of the answer, is as follows:
In claim 1, the phrase "an elongated
strip...which is tear resistance [sic: resistant]
but will tear completely if subjected to a force
which would jeopardize the safety of the wearer in
an amusement park environment" is indefinite because
the applicant does not claim nor disclose the
magnitude of the "force which would jeopardize the
safety of the wearer in an amusement park."
Specifically, the applicant does not claim or
disclose structure to support the above functional
language. The applicant does not disclose the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007