Appeal No. 1996-3591
Application No. 08/251,053
The general rule is that a claim must set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the
disclosure as it would be by the artisan. In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
After reviewing the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with Appellant that no ambiguity or lack of clarity
exists in the claim language. While the term “band” is
perhaps superfluous when used in conjunction with the term
“range”, the inclusion of same does not alter our conclusion
that the claim sets forth the limitation on the reference
voltage with the required specificity. It is our view that
the skilled artisan, having considered the specification in
its entirety, would have no difficulty ascertaining the scope
of the invention recited in independent claim 8. Therefore,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007