Appeal No. 98-1848
Application 08/500,781
Our next difficulty with claim 22 stems from the
recitation that the applicator includes a stem “having
substantially said predetermined flexibility” (i.e., having
substantially the same flexibility as the application member).
On its face, this claim language may appear to be reasonably
clear. However, no claim may be read apart from and
independent of its supporting disclosure, and claim language
which otherwise appears to be definite may take on an
unreasonable degree of uncertainty when read in light of the
supporting specification. In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993, 169
USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA 1971); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 n.2,
169 USPQ 236, 238 n.2 (CCPA 1971). Moreover, the term
“substantially” is a word of degree. When a word of degree is
used in a claim, it is necessary to determine whether the
specification provides some standard for measuring that
degree. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing,
Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
In the present case, we find no standard or guidelines
whatsoever in appellant’s specification to determine to what
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007