Ex Parte YEN et al - Page 8



          Appeal No. 2000-1991                                                        
          Application No. 08/587,417                                                  
          experimentation.  Therefore, we do not sustain the lack of                  
          enablement rejection of claims 1, 5-10, 12-18 and 20-25.                    
               Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph                      
               The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to             
          set out and circumscribe a 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 particular application            
          disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the                 
          ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.  Id.                          
               The examiner’s focus during examination of claims for                  
          compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C.               
          112, second paragraph, is whether the claims meet the threshold             
          requirements of clarity and precision, not whether more suitable            
          language or modes of expression are available.  Some latitude in            
          the manner of expression and the aptness of terms is permitted              
          even though the claim language is not as precise as the examiner            










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007