Appeal No. 96-0881
Application No. 07/795,908
label) which "must be converted to the actual concentrations
of the concentrate components"(specification, page 6, lines
19-22). This conversion or calculation is apparently effected
by entering the "erroneous" data from the concentrate labels
into a monitor 14 and a controller 16 (Figure 2). Thus, based
on the specification, it appears that the claimed step of
"determining the actual concentration of individual
concentrate components to be mixed as a dialysate" covers a
step in which theoretical concentration values of
concentration components, not actual concentration values, are
simply calculated. Moreover, such theoretical concentration
values necessarily are based on the erroneous label data.
In light of the above, it appears that appellants have
chosen to give the claim language "actual concentration" an
uncommon meaning, i.e., a theoretical calculated concentration
based on a label value which appellants acknowledge varies as
much as plus or minus five percent from its actual value. In
the present case, however, this uncommon meaning of the claim
language has not been set forth "with reasonable clarity,
deliberateness, and precision" as required. In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed Cir 1994). Indeed,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007