Appeal No. 2005-2186
Application No. 09/750,664
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
The explanation of this rejection (see pages 3-6 in the
answer) indicates that the examiner considers claims 1-3 to be
indefinite because they (1) are narrative and replete with
grammatical and idiomatic errors and fail to conform with current
USPTO practice, and (2) contain a double inclusion of an element
which, as disclosed, is common to the recited “liquid holder” and
“field applier.”
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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007