Appeal No. 1999-2802
Application 09/076,005
which the appellant regards as the invention.
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejection.
The appellant states that the claims stand or fall
together (brief, page 3). We therefore decide the case based
upon consideration of one claim, i.e., claim 1. See In re
Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed.
Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have
been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out
and circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner’s rejection is based upon the term “methyl
mercaptans” being indefinite (answer, pages 4-5).
It is undisputed that the art-recognized meaning of
“methyl mercaptan” is methanethiol, CH SH. The appellant
3
points out that he is entitled to be his own lexicographer
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007