Appeal No. 95-0730
Application 08/068,575
appealed claims cannot be sustained.
Considering first the rejection under the second paragraph
of § 112, it is established patent law that the claims must
define the metes and bounds of the invention with a reasonable
degree of precision. In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ
149, 151 (CCPA 1976). In the final analysis, the question as to
whether or not language in a claim complies with § 112 ¶ 2
requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art
would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light
of the specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
When the recitation that at least one of the treatment
facilities is “optimized” for treating a different concentration
range is read in light of appellants’ specification in the
present case, we are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that claim language to mean that at
least one of the treatment facilities is more efficient for
processing a particular concentration of a hazardous material
than one of the other types of treatment facilities. Furthermore,
it is not necessary for the claims to recite the particular
structure which optimizes the treatment for a given concentration
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007