Appeal No. 1997-2977
Application No. 08/431,688
whether one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of
the claim when read in light of the specification.
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d
1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1986). That is, a
claim complies with the second paragraph of section 112 if,
when read in light of the specification, it reasonably
apprises those skilled in the art of the scope of the
invention. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.,
802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applying these principles to the present case, we are
convinced that the appealed claims fail to distinctly claim
what the appellants regard as their invention. As pointed out
by the examiner, the appealed claims recite that the non-
ferrous metal substrate or the anodic coating on the substrate
does not have “any substantial amount of surface reflectance”
(appealed claims 1, 12, and 25) or “any substantial amount of
reflectance” (claim 23). However, the specification, as
originally filed, does include an adequate written description
for the characteristics defined by the recitations, much less
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007