Appeal No. 98-2069
Application No. 29/052,369
it is necessary to determine whether the disclosure 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).
Admittedly, the fact that some claim language, such as
the term of degree mentioned supra, may not be precise, does
not automatically render the claim indefinite under the second
paragraph of § 112. Seattle Box, supra. Nevertheless, the
need to cover what might constitute insignificant variations
of an invention does not amount to a license to resort to the
unbridled use of such terms without appropriate constraints to
guard against the potential use of such terms as the
proverbial nose of wax.2
In Seattle Box, the court set forth the following
requirements for terms of degree:
When a word of degree is used the district court
must determine whether the patent's specification
2 See White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 51-52 (1886) and
Townsend Engineering Co. v. HiTec Co. Ltd., 829 F.2d 1086,
1089-91, 4 USPQ2d 1136, 1139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007