Appeal No. 1998-1718 Application No. 08/479,862 Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner's rejections. We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 16, 18, 19 and 21 under § 112, second paragraph. According to the examiner, the claims "are indefinite in the concentrations of 80 ppb or 50 ppb because it is not clear what is the basis of said ppb" (page 4 of Answer). However, it is fundamental that claim language is not to be read in a vacuum but in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). In the present case, we agree with appellants that the basis for the claimed concentrations would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be atmospheric air that has been treated to remove the oxidants. We will also not sustain the examiner's prior art rejections since we concur with appellants that neither the vacuum of Mimura nor the nitrogen atmosphere of Herron meets the claimed step in appellants' process of removing part of or -3-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007