Appeal No. 97-1627 Page 9
Application No. 08/202,991
the claim merely recites that the total thickness of the
sensor is less than its width. (Spec. at 15.) The claim,
moreover, does not even note N or the L/W ratio. These
omissions evidence that the appellants did not regard the
number of layers, L/W ratio, or total thickness of their
sensor as critical. Cf. In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1240-
41, 176 USPQ 331, 333 (CCPA 1973) (finding that omissions of a
hemostatic primary layer from an abstract and original claim 1
“make clear that appellant did not regard his invention as
limited” to such a layer).
The parts of the specification that mention ranges for
these limitations, moreover, are brief and inexact. One part
mentions
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007