Appeal No. 1999-0245
Application No. 08/720,268
answers. However, for the reasons articulated below, we cannot
sustain any of the rejections.
Indefiniteness
We do not sustain the rejecton of claims 1 through 5, 8, 11,
14, 16, 18, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite. Specifically, the examiner considers claims
1, 11, and 16 to be confusing and/or incorrect relative to a
determination of liquid level in light of appellant’s
specification. As to claim 8, it is the examiner’s view that the
claim is incorrect since the specification does not set forth a
control electronic means causing a transducer to transmit
acoustic energy “in short pulses and at a repetition rate”, as
claimed.
At this point, we note that a decision as to claim
indefiniteness requires a determination whether those skilled in
the art would understand what is claimed. See Amgen Inc. v.
Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016,
1030 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Moreover, claim language must be read in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007