Appeal No. 2004-1021
Application No. 09/707,450
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. Reading claim 25 in light of the appellants’
disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily
appreciate the language in the claim pertaining to the locations
of high stress as referring to those areas of the unformed
component which will become locations of high stress when the
component is formed and used.
Thus, the examiner’s concerns that claim 25 is indefinite
are unfounded. Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 25.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 20
through 23 and 25 as being unpatentable over Wycech in view of
Wieting
Wycech, the examiner’s primary reference, pertains to
vehicle suspension torsion bars and methods for their
manufacture. In use, torsion bars undergo spring-like twisting
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007