Appeal No. 2002-0184 -6-
Application No. 09/058,537
31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The inquiry is to determine whether the
claim sets out and circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. The definiteness of the language employed in a claim must be analyzed not in
a vacuum, but in light of the teachings of the particular application. In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
It is the examiner’s position that the claimed subject matter is indefinite in that the
term, “the ratio of the molecular weight of the high molecular weight component to the
low molecular weight component is $ 3.5” is vague and indefinite, as “it is not known
what type of molecular weight is being referenced. See claim 7 and Answer, page 3. We
disagree with the examiner’s position. A ratio of molecular weights is a unit-less number.
Regardless whether one uses weight average or number average molecular weight, the ratio
of the molecular weights is a pure number. Accordingly, the examiner is in effect objecting
to the breadth of the claim in that it encompasses all molecular weight units. However, it is
well settled that breadth does not necessarily render a claim indefinite and the examiner has
stated no other ground of rejection. Id. In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ
138, 140 (CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is not indefiniteness."); In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d
904, 909, 164 USPQ 642, 645-46 (CCPA 1970).
Based upon the above findings and analysis, the rejection of the examiner under
§ 112, second paragraph is not sustainable.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007