Appeal No. 2001-0150
Application No. 09/250,617
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. We initially note that 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007