Appeal No. 97-2481
Application No. 08/480,964
indefinite if the specification provides some standard for
measuring that degree. Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial
Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, however, we do not find any such
standard in appellant’s specification. The only disclosure in
the specification concerning an increase in inductance is found
on page 6, line 23, to page 7, line 7, wherein it is stated that
simulations of the magnetic performance of a filter connector
using a ferrite barrel having a cylindrical bore and using a
ferrite barrel having a rectangular bore indicated that the
inductance of the latter was approximately five times that of the
former. However, it is not apparent whether or not this
disclosure constitutes a standard for measuring the recited
"substantial increase," i.e., whether the expression "a
substantial increase" in the claims should be interpreted as "an
approximately five-fold increase," or, if not, how great an
increase must be before it constitutes a "substantial increase."
In view of the lack of a clear standard, we do not consider that
one of ordinary skill could reasonably determine the scope of
claims 1 and 2.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Before considering the rejections under §§ 102(f) and 103
individually, we note that a rejection over prior art of claims
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007