Appeal No. 2000-0330 Page 5
Application No. 08/684,871
argues, "[o]ne of ordinary skill would recognize this ‘linking’
involves connection within a module of the first switching node
between the main and substitute logic paths, and another
connection within the second switching node between these same
paths." (Appeal Br. at 8.)
“The test for definiteness is 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).
If the claims read in light of the specification reasonably
apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention,
Section 112 demands no more. Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir.
1986).” Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875, 27
USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, claims 18 and 19 specify in pertinent part the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007