Appeal No. 97-1176
Application 08/003,673
236, 238 (CCPA 1971), the determination of whether the claims of
an application satisfy the requirement of the second paragraph of
§ 112 is
merely to determine whether the claims do, in fact, set
out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. It
is here where the definiteness of language employed
must be analyzed -- not in a vacuum, but always in
light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of
skill in the pertinent art. [emphasis added; footnote
omitted]
Moreover, while we appreciate that definiteness problems
sometimes arise when words of degree, such as “sufficiently
small,” are used in a claim, it is well settled that where the
specification provides some standard for measuring that degree,
indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, will not
lie. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731
F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In the present case, we are satisfied that those skilled in
the art would be reasonably apprised of the subject matter
encompassed by the appealed claims and that the metes and bounds
are defined with a reasonable degree of precision. Pertinent
portions of appellants’ disclosure which shed light on and
provide guidance for measuring the scope of the claim language
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007