Appeal No. 2005-0855 9
Application No. 10/269,807
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 views the appealed claims to be indefinite for
reasons essentially similar to those listed above in connection
with the enablement rejection. In this regard, the examiner
points to the claim limitations relating to (1) the activation of
a positron emitter, (2) the positron lifetime, Doppler
broadening, three-dimensional imaging and activation/analysis
process algorithms and (3) the determination of the half-life of
the selected positron emitter (see pages 9 through 11 in the
second answer). For the reasons explained previously, the
limitations pertaining to the activation of a positron emitter
would have been readily understood by the artisan when read in
light of the underlying specification. Furthermore, the
examiner’s criticisms of the claim limitations pertaining to the
algorithms and the half-life of the selected positron emitter
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007