Appeal No. 2002-1395 Page 6
Application No. 08/789,702
"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, the examiner admits that "[t]he term 'template' in the claims is used by the
claim to mean 'that defined in lines 5-11, page 9, specification,'. . . ." (Examiner's
Answer at 5.) This passage of the appellants' specification explains that a template is
provided "for a selected portion of the circuit design," (Spec. at 9), to "selectively
provid[e] modularity to a behavioral description of a circuit design. The template
includes a template call and a corresponding template behavioral description." (Id.)
Claim 12 explains that the template behavioral description "models a selected portion of
2"The claims as filed are part of the specification, and may provide or contribute
to compliance with Section 112." Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F3d 1348, 1352, 47 USPQ2d
1128, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d
931, 938, 15 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 1346,
226 USPQ 683, 686-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Frey, 166 F.2d 572, 575, 77 USPQ 116,
119 (CCPA 1948)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007