Appeal No. 2003-1118
Application 08/968,534
in independent claims 11 and 15 requiring the air nozzle or
nozzle means to be centered within the vacuum flow path are
indefinite.2
The second paragraph of § 112, ¶ 2, 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 determining whether this
standard is met, 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.
The paragraph spanning lines 4 through 27 on page 8 in the
appellant’s specification indicates that the nozzle 70 is located
in the center of the vacuum path in the sense that the high-
pressure air emitted from the nozzle is focused directly at the
point of lowest pressure created by the vacuum and that air is
swept into the vacuum all around the nozzle to form a virtual air
curtain around both the nozzle and the point at which the high-
1 Claims 2 through 14 depend from claim 1.
2 Interestingly, although claim 16 contains a similar
limitation, the examiner did not include it or dependent claim 17
in the rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007