Appeal No. 96-2179 Page 20
Application 07/613,466
Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580, 12 USPQ2d 1382, 1386-87 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
B. Indefiniteness
3. A claim is indefinite if it fails to apprise those
skilled in the art both of the use and the scope of the
invention or if the language is not 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).
Claims must be read in light of the specification, but this
axiom cuts both ways since the specification may reinforce the
appearance of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235
n.2, 169 USPQ 236, 238 n.2 (CCPA 1971).
4. The examiner rejected claims 1 and 38 because "[i]t
is unclear what parameters are encompassed by ['a measured
value thereof is changed in one direction by increases in
stress/exercise and in an opposite direction by increases in
heart rate'] since there are no known parameters that
simultaneously change in opposite directions due to exercise
. . .." (Paper 22 at 4, emphasis added.)
5. We conclude that claims 1 and 38 are indefinite. As
written, these claims require a parameter that correlates to
stress and heart rate in opposite directions when ordinarily
the underlying parameters are directly related. Although the
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007