Appeal No. 2003-1844 Page 3
Application No. 09/643,130
and to the brief (Paper No. 12, filed November 18, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 14,
filed February 13, 2003) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied patent to Gibson, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007