Appeal No. 2006-0545 Page 7
Application No. 10/019,273
Appellants assert that the plain language of the phrase “25 hours or more” is
intended to cover an unlimited period, or at least as long as the composition maintains
catalytic activity. (Brief, p. 10).
“The legal standard for definiteness [under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112] is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of [sic; ordinary] skill in the art of its
scope.” In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir.
1994). The inquiry is to determine whether the claim sets out and circumscribes a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. The definiteness
of the language employed in a claim must be analyzed not in a vacuum, but in light of
the teachings of the particular application. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169
USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). After consideration of the present record, we determine
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the disputed claim
language covers the time period greater that 25 hours and for at least as long as the
composition maintains catalytic activity. As such, the Examiner’s rejection on this basis
is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007