Appeal No. 96-4149
Application 08/276,436
While we are mindful that appellant is free to claim his
invention in broad terms and in language of his own choosing,
we must also remember that because a patentee has a right to
exclude others from making, using and selling the invention
covered by a patent (35 U.S.C. § 154), the public must be
appraised of exactly what the patent covers, so that those who
would approach the area circumscribed by the claims of the
patent may more readily and accurately determine the
boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility
of infringement and dominance. It is to
this end that the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
directed. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ
204, 208 (CCPA 1970). The inquiry, as stated in In re Moore,
439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971) is:
. . . whether the claims do, in fact, set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. . . . [T]he
definiteness of the language employed must be
analyzed -- not in a vacuum, but always in light of
the teachings of the prior art and of the particular
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007