Appeal No. 95-2783 Page 4
Application 08/026,504
after-final amendment does not solve the problem or improve the
clarity of the claim.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Indefiniteness
1. Claims must reasonably apprise those skilled in the art
both of the use and the scope of the invention, and their
language must be as precise as the subject matter permits.
Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613,
624, 225 USPQ 634, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1985). An examiner must permit
applicants wide latitude in claiming subject matter as they see
fit, but the examiner must work to ensure that claims are as
clear and precise as possible.
2. In the case before us, it seems unlikely that one
skilled in the art would miss Appellant's intent. At the same
time, neither Appellant nor the examiner were able to arrive at
language that would eliminate the technical inaccuracy.
Consequently, the claims are not as precise as the subject matter
allows.
3. At the hearing, we discussed the following formulation
with counsel for Appellant:
0.4 fw/mm < f3/f2 < 0.8 fw/mm
where the first and third terms are divided by millimeters, the
unit for fw, so that all of the expressions are now
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007