Appeal No. 1998-1273
Application No. 08/624,148
(CCPA 1976), citing In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ
236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
“The legal standard for definiteness [under section 112,
¶2] is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in
the art of its scope. [Citations omitted].” In re Warmerdam,
33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
“[T]he definiteness of the language employed 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.” Angstadt, supra; Moore, supra.
The examiner has stated that the terms “high,”“low” and
“medium” in claims 11 and 19 on appeal are subjective and thus
unclear, and the term “predetermined time sequence” in claim
1, part (c) and claim 12, part (e), is unclear in the basis
for determining it (Answer, page 3).1
Subjective terms such as “high,” “low” and “medium” are
not necessarily indefinite and unclear. When a word of degree
1The examiner’s final rejection of the claimed word
“isothermal” under section 112, ¶2, is withdrawn. See the
Answer, page 6.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007