Appeal No. 2001-1860
Application No. 08/993,104
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 9) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 15) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 14) for
appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Section 112
The function of claims is (1) to point out what the invention is in such a way as to
distinguish it from the prior art; and (2) to define the scope of protection afforded by the
patent. In re Vamco Mach., Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1577 n.5, 224 USPQ 617, 635 n.5
(Fed. Cir. 1985). 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). The inquiry is merely to determine whether the
claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
(CCPA 1971). The definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed -- not in a
vacuum, but 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.
In the statement of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
(Answer at 3-5), the examiner sets forth several concerns arising from the language of
the instant claims. The examiner considers the words “simultaneously” and
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007