Appeal No. 97-2451 Page 6
Application No. 08/260,635
If the claims, read in light of the specifications
[sic], reasonably apprise those skilled in the art both
of the utilization and scope of the invention, and if
the language is as precise as the subject matter
permits, the courts can demand no more.
Indeed, the fundamental purpose of a patent claim is to
define the scope of protection and hence what the claim4
precludes others from doing. All things considered, because a
patentee has the right to exclude others from making, using and
selling the invention covered by a United States letters patent,
the public must be apprised of what the patent covers, so that
those who approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a
patent may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries
of protection in evaluating the possibility of infringement and
dominance. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204,
208 (CCPA 1970).
In the present case, we have reviewed the appellant's
disclosure to help us determine the meaning of the above-noted
terminologies from claim 1. That review has revealed that the
appellant used the terminology "substantially below" only in
original claim 1. In addition, pages 7 and 10 of the
4 See In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 224
USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007