Appeal No. 2002-1019
Application 09/433,570
b) “Claim 9 recites the limitation ‘a triangular position of
constant triangle’ in the preamble. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim” (final
rejection, page 4); and
c) “Claim 16 recites the limitation ‘a locked, triangulated
position’ in the preamble and ‘a planar anchor’ in the claim.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the
claim” (final rejection, pages 4 and 5).
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 determining
whether this standard is met, 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 definition of the anchor in claim 1 as “substantially
planar,” although not exact, is nonetheless reasonably precise,
and thus does not pose an indefiniteness problem. The examiner’s
concern with the breadth of this limitation in relation to the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007