Appeal No. 95-2889 Page 6
Application No. 07/525,231
Industrial Crating & Packing, 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568,
573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Appellants have not directed us to
any such standard. Appellants' specification does not contain
the phrase "substantially smaller" so we cannot look to the
specification for a specific definition of the term
"substantially". While the specification provides examples
where the microspheres are smaller than the white blood cells
of interest, approximately one-twelfth to one-third the size
of these cells, nothing in the specification limits the
claimed range "substantially smaller" to the size range
covered by these examples. Without a specific definition or
other link between the claims and the examples within the
specification, one skilled in the art could not ascertain the
upper limit of particle sizes that meet the limitation of
being "substantially smaller" than the white blood cells of
interest short of the actual size of the white blood cells.
For example, is a particle which is nine-tenths the size of a
white blood cell of interest "substantially smaller" than the
white blood cell? Neither the disclosure nor the claims
provide the answer. On this record, Appellants have not met
their burden of precisely defining the invention, so we affirm
the examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112[2].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007