Appeal No. 97-2488
Application 08/163,202
In discussing the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, the court in In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378,
1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970) stated that
[i]ts purpose is to provide those who would
endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach
the area circumscribed by the claims of a
patent, with the adequate notice demanded by
due process of law, so that they may more
readily and accurately determine the
boundaries of protection involved and
evaluate the possibility of infringement and
dominance.
The view has further been expressed that claims are considered to
be definite, as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, when they define the metes and bounds of a claimed
invention with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ
149, 151 (CCPA 1976). It must also be keep in mind that claim
language is read in light of the specification, as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Taking the above principles into consideration, we turn
now to the situation of the present application.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007