Appeal No. 97-0677
Application No. 08/312,710
a determination of the scope of the claim. The properly
interpreted claim must then be compared with the prior art.
Claim interpretation must begin with the language of the claim
itself. See Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena
Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
Our review of independent claim 1 reveals that we are
unable to derive a proper understanding of the scope and
content thereof. Specifically, the terminology "so that said
body portion outside surface is positioned in a tangential
plane in close proximity to a tangential plane along said
handling ring outer surface" in independent claim 1 raises a
definiteness issue under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The terminology "in close proximity" is a term of degree.
When a word of degree is used, such as the terminology "in
close proximity" in claim 1, it is necessary to determine
whether the specification provides some standard for measuring
that degree. See Seattle Box Company, Inc. v. Industrial
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007