Appeal No. 96-2724
Application 08/343,201
Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970).
This is not to say that a lack of precision in claim language
automatically renders a claim indefinite. However, definiteness
problems often arise when words of degree are used in a claim. In
such a case, it must be decided whether one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read
in light of the specification. See Seattle Box Co., Inc. v.
Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ
568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In the present case, independent claim 10 was amended
in Paper No. 23, filed July 7, 1995, to include a limitation
regarding the sealed compartment of the display assembly therein
being "substantially free of liquid." Appellant's specification
does not provide any guidance as to what might constitute a
sealed compartment that is "substantially free of liquid," and
it does not appear to us that this claim language has any clear
meaning when read in light of the originally filed specification.
Page 3 of the specification describes the embodiment of Figure 1
as including a sealed pouch (12) provided with a large number of
discrete, luminescent glow pieces (22). The specification is
silent as to any fluid in the pouch (12). The embodiment of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007