Appeal No. 1998-2224
Application No. 08/624,147
the Brief and the reasons below. We affirm the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-27 under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting essentially for the
reasons in the Answer and the reasons below. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2
“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.” In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498,
501, 190 USPQ 214, 217 (CCPA 1976), quoting from In re Moore,
439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007