Ex Parte ROTHENBERG et al - Page 6




              Appeal No. 2002-0747                                                                    Page 6                 
              Application No. 09/006,982                                                                                     


                      In this rejection, claims 1-27 are considered by the examiner to be indefinite3                        
              under the second paragraph of Section 112 for four reasons.  The first of these is that                        
              the statement in claim 1 that “said axis of air flow is substantially perpendicular to the                     
              forces of gravity” is indefinite “since the Earth is subject to the forces of gravity of many                  
              nearby heavenly bodies and it is not stipulated as to which force it is or could be                            
              perpendicular too [sic], e.g. the Sun (Sol),. [sic] the Moon or maybe the Earth’s own?”                        
              (Answer, page 5).  The question here is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would                         
              understand the phrase in issue to refer to anything other than the earth’s gravity, and                        
              without any hesitation we answer it in the negative.  We do not agree with the examiner                        
              that this language renders the claims indefinite.                                                              
                      The second issue raised by the examiner is that there is “insufficient antecedent                      
              basis” in claim 1 for the limitation “the forces of gravity” (Answer, page 5).  Again, it is                   
              our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is meant by this                          
              language, even absent prior definition in the claim, and therefore its presence does not                       
              cause the claim to be indefinite.                                                                              
                      The examiner also expresses the view (Answer, page 5) that there is “insufficient                      
              antecedent basis” for the limitation “the cross-sectional area” in claim 16, which renders                     

                      3 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  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007