Appeal No. 2002-2187
Application 09/149,359
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.
Although the appellants’ original disclosure does not
furnish literal support for the claim limitation at issue, its
description that the nasal packings are compressed and inserted
into thin-walled, flexible gelatin retainers, as well as the
depiction thereof in the drawings, would reasonably convey to the
artisan that the appellants had possession at that time of a
method as recited in claims 17 through 19 wherein the insertion
cross-section of the resiliently deflectable device body (nasal
packing 224) is “substantially” uniform. Also, read in light of
this description, the “substantially” uniform limitation sets out
and circumscribes the insertion cross-section of the resiliently
deflectable device body with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007