Appeal No. 98-2069
Application No. 29/052,369
provides some standard for measuring that degree.
The trial court must decide, that is, whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand what is
claimed when the claim is read in light of the
specification.
In Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758
F.2d 613, 624, 225 USPQ 634, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(quoting from
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 258 F.2d
124, 136, 118 USPQ 122, 132 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S.
884, 119 USPQ 501 (1958)), the court added:
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, one fundamental purpose of a claim is to define
the scope of protection and hence what the claim precludes3
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 a claim of a
3 See In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 224
USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007