Appeal No. 2000-0037
Application 08/627,631
invention the scope of protection defined by the claims when read
in light of appellants' supporting specification. Stated another
way, appellants' claims lack adequate specificity to place the
public on notice of exactly what is the invention claimed by
appellants.
Independent claims 14 and 25 use a slightly different
phrase, that is, "under conditions substantially similar to said
processing conditions" to describe the conditions used in the
prior art process used to prepare prior art films to which
appellants compare the properties of their film. This terminology
also fails to adequately define the metes and bounds of the
protection for which appellants seek a patent. What constitute
prior art conditions which are "substantially similar" to the
claimed conditions cannot be determined because appellants'
specification does not define what appellants mean by said
terminology.
Thus, nowhere in appellants' specification is the claim
terminology "under substantially identical processing conditions"
or "under conditions substantially similar to said processing
conditions" set forth. Indeed, we are unable to determine the
difference between conditions said to be "substantially
identical" to prior art process conditions and those which are
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007