Appeal No. 2000-0560
Application No. 08/578,636
parts are to be interconnected in a final assembly, if
assembled, does not render the claims indefinite.” (main
brief, page 5).
The second paragraph of § 112 requires that the claims
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which an appellant regards as his invention. This is
essentially a requirement for precision and definiteness of
claim language so that the claims make clear what subject
matter they encompass and thus what a patent, if granted,
precludes others from doing. See In re Conley, 490 F.2d 972,
975, 180 USPQ 454, 456 (CCPA 1974). We agree with the
appellant (reply brief, page 2) that there is nothing
intrinsically wrong with employing “functional” limitations to
define something by what it does rather than by what it is.
In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA
1981); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228
(CCPA 1971). However, for the following reasons, we believe
that the claims fail to make clear what group of parts form
the claimed sealing arrangement and thus lack the precision
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007