Appeal No. 99-0920
Application No. 08/629,323
the brief) and will be treated accordingly in the opinion
below.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain each of the
rejections advanced on this appeal except for the section 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claim 33.
The section 112, second paragraph, rejection
We agree with the examiner that the claim term
“substantially” renders claim 31 indefinite. This is because
we find nothing in the subject specification which provides
some standard for measuring the degree of scope to be assigned
the aforementioned claim term. Seattle Box Co., Inc. v.
Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221
USPQ 568, 573-574 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Although the appellants
make the unembellished contention that “the specification
enables persons skilled in the art to understand the [claim
31] terminology ‘substantially annular shape’” (brief, page
8), we find utterly no support for this contention, and the
appellants point to none.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007