Appeal No. 95-4147
Application 08/151,454
Appellant argues that the term “generally” is not
ambiguous and that one reading these claims would easily
understand the meaning and know the metes and bounds recited
(Brief, page 7). Appellant submits that the phrase “generally
being ink-impermeable” refers to a relative permeability in
keeping with the teachings of the specification (Reply Brief,
page 2).4
“The legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim
reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope.”
In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759
(Fed. Cir. 1994). “It is well established that claims are not
to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be
4All reference to the Reply Brief is to the “Response to
Examiner’s Answer” dated June 19, 1995, Paper No. 8. The
“Response to Supplemental Examiner’s Answer” dated July 24,
1995, Paper No. 10, has been refused entry by the examiner
(see the Letter dated Aug. 15, 1995, Paper No. 11).
Accordingly, the response of Paper No. 10 is not part of the
record before us on appeal. It is noted that the “Order
Remanding to Examiner” dated Aug. 5, 1998, Paper No. 15,
required the examiner to respond to, inter alia, the “Response
to Examiner’s Communication and Request to Strike Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer” (Paper No. 12). The Letter from the
examiner dated Dec. 24, 1998, Paper No. 16, failed to respond
to Paper No. 12. However, this failure to respond by the
examiner is immaterial since it does not affect our decision.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007