Appeal No. 2004-0312
Application No. 09/277,534
possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. In
re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
We find that the claim language under review, when analyzed
as instructed above, circumscribes an area of subject matter with
a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. Contrary to
the examiner’s viewpoint, the appealed claims are not rendered
indefinite simply because the subject matter thereof is defined
in terms of structure, such as a glass cutting table, which is
not part of the claimed subject matter. As correctly indicated
by the appellant, defining claimed subject matter in such terms
is common and aids in understanding this subject matter by
describing it with respect to the environment (e.g., a glass
cutting table) in which it is used. Further, we cannot agree
with the examiner that such description confuses whether the
structure in question, such as a glass cutting table, is part of
the claimed subject matter (i.e., a combination) or not (i.e., a
sub-combination). Indeed, the examiner’s position on this matter
is undermined by the fact that his claim interpretation vis-a-vis
the application of prior art generally corresponds to the claim
interpretation given by the appellant in the reply brief.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007