Appeal No. 2004-1796 Page 4
Application No. 09/682,167
determination, 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 has pointed out a number of
instances wherein he believes the claims are indefinite for lack of antecedent basis for
some of the recited terminology. Although there might be better ways in which to
express the disputed terminology, we do not agree that the claims as presented are
indefinite when one considers the explanation of the invention as presented in the
specification taken in view of the knowledge that should be accorded to one of ordinary
skill in the art.
For example, the examiner has taken the position that the limitations “the
Barrowman center of pressure,” “the center of lateral area,” “the stable flying rocket,”
“the aerodynamic stability,” “the distance,” and “the pitch maneuver” in claims 1, 5, 8, 9
and 14 have no antecedent basis in the claims and therefore the claims are indefinite.
However, these terms all are explained in the specification and appear from the applied
references to be well known in the art. It therefore is our view that the lack of
antecedent basis in the claims for these terms would not preclude one of ordinary skill in
the art from determining the metes and bounds of the claims. We reach the same
conclusion with regard to other limitations cited by the examiner in claims 4, 9 and 12.
With regard to the appearance without antecedent basis of “the ejection charge” in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007