Appeal No. 97-1119
Application 08/285,219
In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396, 186 USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975).
The problem in the present case arises from the recitation
"in the absence of solar sails which would substantially increase
the surface area of the platform" in independent claim 16. In
particular, if the recited method were performed by a platform
having solar sails, could one of ordinary skill, reading the
claim in light of the specification, readily and accurately
determine whether those sails were sails which "would
substantially increase the surface area of the platform", as
recited in the claim.
The use of a word of degree such as "substantially" in a
claim does not render the claim indefinite if the specification
provides some standard for measuring that degree. Seattle Box
Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818,
826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 564, 184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975). In
the present case, appellants disclose the use of "small solar
sails" by which "is meant that the solar sails do not substan-
tially increase the surface area of the platform" (page 19, lines
1 to 3), and "small movable vanes or sails (that is, small vanes
that do not substantially increase the surface area of the
platform)" (page 21, lines 17 and 18). Having thus defined
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007