Appeal No. 2004-0184
Application No. 09/837,824
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.
To begin with, claim 2 recites a body constructed from a
material “selected from the group including of an environmentally
inert and biodegradable material.” Similarly, claim 9 recites a
body constructed of a material “selected from the group including
biodegradable materials and environmentally inert materials.”
The underlying specification (see pages 4 and 6) indicates that
the body is constructed of an environmentally inert material, a
biodegradable material or other unspecified types of material.
Against this background, the scope of the open-ended material
groups set forth in claims 2 and 9 is unclear.2 Furthermore, the
recitation in claim 2 of a material which is both environmentally
2 To the extent that the appellant may have intended to
define these groups in so-called Markush format, attention is
directed to MPEP § 2173.05(h).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007