Appeal No. 97-0514
Application 08/345,114
precision," In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994), and the special meaning "must be
sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure
from common usage would be so understood by a person of
experience in the field of the invention." Multiform
Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477, 45 USPQ2d
1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In the present case, appellant's specification does
not meet these criteria, since the term "radiation" is not
explicitly defined therein. Also, although appellant's
disclosure is generally directed toward the detection of
photons, it implies that other types of radiation may be
detected by its disclosure that radiation "being caused by
current flowing in the surface" is detected (page 4, lines 8
and 9), and that "detector 16 may be any detector capable of
detecting radiation" (page 6, lines
15 and 16; emphasis added).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007