Appeal No. 97-2893 Application No. 29/038,948 1988) in rejecting the claim. First, we did not rely on MPEP § 1504.04 in arriving at our decision. Second, we expressly stated on page 20 of our decision that we did not rely on Sussman in arriving at our conclusion that the standing rejection is sustainable. Third, it is not clear what "binding precedent" MPEP § 1504.04 or Sussman violate.6 Finally, we simply disagree with appellants' final point that our decision, if correct, renders thousands of unexpired design and utility patents having the word "substantially" in the claim invalid. Our decision makes no such sweeping holding. Rather, our decision stands for the proposition that the definiteness of a design claim including language such as "substantially as shown and described" must be resolved in the same way definiteness issues are resolved in any other application involving words of degree, that is, on the basis of the particular facts of the involved application (i.e., on a case-by-case basis). 6MPEP § 1504.04 has been revised to delete the reference to Sussman. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007