Appeal No. 1999-2101 Page 5
Application No. 08/929,012
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re Johnson, 558
F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). In making this determination, the
definiteness of the language employed in the claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum,
but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the application disclosure as it
would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Id.
From our perspective, considering the appellant’s claims in this light leads us not to agree
with the examiner with regard to any of the “examples” raised, for the reasons expressed
by the appellant on pages 4-6 of the Brief. Suffice it to say, on our part, (1) that an
applicant is free to express elements of the claim in language that includes the functions to
be accomplished by the structure, and (2) a claim is not indefinite simply because it is
broad.
This rejection is not sustained.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16-21 stand rejected as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Gerber '572 taken in view of those of Gerber '820,
Le Blond and Gerber '980. With regard to independent claim 15, it is the examiner's view that
Gerber '572 discloses the invention "substantially as claimed," and to the extent that the
elements disclosed in the primary reference fail to "inherently" perform the functions recited in
the claim, Gerber '820 teaches using a computer to arrange the pattern pieces in such a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007