Appeal No. 2002-1250 Page 4
Application No. 09/200,057
and to the supplemental brief (Paper No. 18, filed April 6, 2001) and reply brief (Paper
No. 20, filed September 12, 2001) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6 to 9, 18 and 19 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007