Appeal No. 97-3198
Application No. 08/502,408
disclosure of the appellant’s invention does not include this
language. The only clue provided in the specification as to
the extent of overlap of the opposed sides of the arms and
teeth in the appellant’s invention is that they “at least
partially overlap” (pages 4 and 6). This not only is not
synonymous with “substantially entirely” but is, in our view,
contradictory thereof, which fuels the issue of what
constitutes “substantially entirely.” Turning to the common
definitions of these two words does not alleviate the
situation. When a word of degree is used in a claim, the2
specification must provide some standard for measuring that
degree, so that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of
the specification. See Seattle Box Co., Inc. V. Industrial
Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 824, 221 USPQ 568, 574
(Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present case, it is our view that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not be so taught.
2“Substantially” is defined as considerable in quantity,
but not wholly, and “entirely” means largely, but not the full
extent, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth
Edition, 1996, pages 1174 and 386.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007