Appeal No. 97-2723
Application 08/320,091
to claim both a method and a system;
therefore, it is vague and indefinite
[answer, page 3].
Appellants argue that claim 6 is clearly a method claim as
recited in its preamble. They also argue that a method claim
is not improper because it recites system-type claim elements
to establish the environment in which the method operates.
Finally, appellants assert that claim 6 clearly recites
functions being performed, and these functions constitute the
method of the claim [brief, page 8].
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).
To the extent that appellants argue that there is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007