Appeal No. 2002-0250 Page 3
Application No. 08/930,771
OPINION
Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claims 3-5 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. According to the
Examiner, the use of the term “substituted” in claim 3 renders that claim, and the claims
dependent thereon, indefinite in the absence of specifying the substituents (Answer at 3). For the
reasons presented in the Brief (at 4-5) and the following reasons, we do not agree.
In determining whether the language of claim 3 is sufficiently definite, we must analyze
whether “one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of
the specification.” Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d
696, 705, 48 USPQ2d 1880, 1888(Fed. Cir. 1998). From a practical point of view, the claims
serve a notice function serving to warn others of what constitutes infringement. Morton Int’l,
Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470, 28 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In
regard to a composition claim, the claim must give clear notice of what compositions are within
the scope of the claim. See PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1562, 37
USPQ2d 1618, 1622 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “The degree of precision necessary for adequate claims is
a function of the nature of the subject matter.” Exxon Research and Eng’g Co. v. US, 46 Fed. Cl.
278, 283, 54 USPQ2d 1519, 1521-22 (Fed. Cl. 2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007