Appeal No. 1998-2847 Page 10
Application No. 08/521,873
Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826,
221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 3
In the present case, the appellants' disclosure does not
provide explicit guidelines defining the meaning of
"substantially similar." Furthermore, there are no guidelines
that would be implicit to one skilled in the art defining the
term "substantially" as used in the terminology "substantially
similar" that would enable one skilled in the art to ascertain
what is meant by "substantially." Absent such guidelines, we
are of the opinion that a skilled person would not be able to
determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with
the precision required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204,
208 (CCPA 1970).
3In Seattle Box, the court set forth the following
requirements for terms of degree:
When a word of degree is used the district court
must determine whether the patent's specification
provides some standard for measuring that degree.
The trial court must decide, that is, whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand what is
claimed when the claim is read in light of the
specification.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007