Appeal No. 2004-0921
Application No. 09/472,134
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, written description rejection of claims
60, 73, 85, 88 and 92.
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1
through 49, 55, 57, 58, 64 through 68, 77 through 84, 87, 88 and
90
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, 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 examiner (see pages 6, 7, 16 and 17 in the answer)
considers claims 1 through 49, 55, 57, 58, 64 through 68, 77
through 84, 87, 88 and 90 to be indefinite due to the references
therein to a “standard rider” and/or a “standard position” of the
rider. According to the examiner, “a rider, a human being,
cannot be standardized [and] even if the rider could be
standardized, the position of the rider . . . depends on more
than simply the dimensions of the rider” (answer, page 6). These
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007