Appeal No. 2004-2042 Page 3
Application No. 10/019,269
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the Schenk patent, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 8 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellant regards as the invention.
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 making this
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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007