Appeal No. 2000-2188 Page 6
Application No. 09/063,050
definiteness of the language must be analyzed, not in a vacuum,
but always in light of teachings of the disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing ordinary skill in the art. In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977),
citing In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
(1971). “The legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim
reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope.” In
re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Furthermore, our reviewing court points out that a claim
which is of such breadth that it reads on subject matter
disclosed in the prior art is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
rather than under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See In re
Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
citing In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909, 164 USPQ 642, 645-46
(CCPA 1970).
Upon a careful review of the claim language and the
specification, we find that the claimed limitation of “the
externally applied clock signal is received from a clock signal
generator that communicates with the voltage generator” refers to
a clock signal generator that sends the clock signal to the
voltage generator. It is clear from the specification as a whole
and page 8, lines 27-31 and page 9, lines 8-12 specifically, that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007