Appeal No. 2002-1457
Application No. 09/047,315
interstitially relative to two given scan lines (reply brief,
page 3).
Analysis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, should begin with the determination of whether claims
set out and circumscribe the particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity; it is here where
definiteness of the language must be analyzed, not in a vacuum,
but always in light of teachings of the disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing ordinary skill in the art. In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977),
citing In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
(1971). “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) (citing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 927
F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1030 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied
sub nom., Genetics Inst., Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., 112 S.Ct. 169
(1991)).
We note that the Examiner has neither outlined any specific
reasoning in support of the alleged indefiniteness of the claims
nor provided any response to Appellants’ reasonable rebuttal. In
fact, we find ourselves in agreement with Appellants’ arguments
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007