Appeal No. 2003-0117
Application 09/747,077
precision and particularity, the definiteness of the language
employed in the claim 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.
See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17, 194 USPQ 187, 194
n.17 (CCPA 1977). When that standard of evaluation is applied to
the language employed in claims 8, 9, 12, 17, 22, 23, 26 and 27
before us on appeal, we are of the opinion that those claims set
out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity.
Concerning the examiner’s problem with the recitations of
claims 18 and 20, wherein “[a] replaceable sole member” is
defined in terms of its relationship to a wedge-soled bowling
shoe with which it is intended to be used, and wherein details of
said wedge-soled bowling shoe are set forth in the preamble of
the claim and referred back to in defining and limiting the
replaceable sole member, we share appellant’s view that these
claims set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007