Appeal No. 97-2451 Page 4
Application No. 08/260,635
Our review of independent claim 1 reveals that we are unable
to derive a proper understanding of the scope and content
thereof. Specifically, the terminology "cooling said seal during
said delamination to a temperature substantially below the
initial temperature of said seal upon removal from said heat
sealing location" and "applying a pulling force to said pulling
portions . . . to rapidly remove the heat seal segment from the
heat seal location" in independent claim 1 raise definiteness
issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.2
The terminologies "substantially below" and "rapidly remove"
are terms of degree. When a word of degree is used, such as the
terminologies "substantially below" and "rapidly remove" in claim
1, it is necessary to determine whether the specification
provides some standard for measuring that degree. See Seattle
Box Company, Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d
818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
2The appellant argues (brief, pp. 13-15 and 24-25) that the
applied prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed
substantial cooling period. The examiner determined (answer, p.
4) that the claimed substantial cooling period was inherently met
by exposing the sample (i.e., strip) to ambient conditions upon
removal of the sample from the heat sealing location.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007