Appeal No. 2004-1249
Application 09/857,086
recitations as rendering claims 4 and 5 indefinite because “[i]t
is unclear if ‘the top view’ is referencing a spatial
relationship for the projections with respect to the lid or a
reference point for viewing the projections” (answer, page 3).
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 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.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading claims 4 and
5 in light of the relevant portions of the underlying
specification (see page 3), would readily understand the “in a
top facing view” language in these claims as setting forth a
frame of reference, i.e., from the top or above, from which the
specified shapes of the projection base areas are discernable.
Hence, the examiner’s concern that these claims are indefinite is
unfounded.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007