Appeal No. 2005-2211 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/715,002
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, 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 rejections
The legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim reasonably apprises those
of skill in the art of its scope. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d
1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In determining whether this standard is met, the
definiteness of the language employed in the claim 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. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
We turn our attention first to the examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claim 21,
and claim 31 depending therefrom, on the basis that there is no clear frame of reference
for the limitation "longer than said front wall." While the examiner is correct that the
language in claim 21 is sufficiently broad to encompass the upper and lower walls being
longer than the front wall in either a longitudinal or lateral dimension, this is a matter of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007