Appeal No. 97-2451 Page 5 Application No. 08/260,635 Admittedly, the fact that some claim language, such as the terms of degree mentioned supra, may not be precise, does not automatically render the claim indefinite and hence invalid under the second paragraph of § 112. Seattle Box, supra. Nevertheless, the need to cover what might constitute insignificant variations of an invention does not amount to a license to resort to the unbridled use of such terms without appropriate constraints to guard against the potential use of such terms as the proverbial nose of wax.3 In Seattle Box, the court set forth the following requirements for terms of degree: When a word of degree is used the district court must determine whether the patent's specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. The trial court must decide, that is, whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. In Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 624, 225 USPQ 634, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the court added: 3 See White v. Dunbar, 119 US 47, 51-52 (1886) and Townsend Engineering Co. v. HiTec Co. Ltd., 829 F.2d 1086, 4 USPQ2d 1136, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 1987).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007