Appeal No. 93-3228
Application 07/796,023
F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1991). An
otherwise definite claim may take on an unreasonable degree of
uncertainty upon a reading of the specification disclosure.
See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 n.2, 169 USPQ 236, 238
n.2 (CCPA 1971). Where, as here, there is an ambiguity
between the well settled meaning of “consisting essentially
of” and the construction of the claimed subject matter as
explicitly described in the specification, it is apparent that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably
apprised of the scope of the claims. If appellant discloses
in the specification that no components are present in the
implant other than the bioactive macromolecule and the lipid
powder, but the well accepted meaning of the claim includes
other components as long as the basic and novel
characteristics of the claimed composition are not materially
affected, appellant is not
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject
matter he regards as his invention as required by the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
For the foregoing reasons, we enter a new ground of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007