Appeal No. 2000-1622
Application No. 08/752,445
that particular automobile was evident from the specification,
and that one of ordinary skill in the art would easily have
been able to determine the appropriate dimensions. The Court
then stated (806 F.2d at 1076, 1 USPQ2d at 1088):
The claims were intended to cover the use
of the invention with various types of
automobiles. That a particular chair on which
the claims read may fit within some automobiles
and not others is of no moment. The phrase "so
dimensioned" is as accurate as the subject
matter permits, automobiles being of various
sizes. See Rosemont, Inc. v. Beckman
Instruments, Inc., 727 F.2d 1540, 1547, 221 USPQ
1, 7 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As long as those of
ordinary skill in the art realized that the
dimensions could be easily obtained, § 112, 2d ¶
requires nothing more. The patent law does not
require that all possible lengths corresponding
to the spaces in hundreds of different
automobiles be listed in the patent, let alone
that they be listed in the claims.
By analogy, in the present case one of ordinary skill would
have been able to determine the distance between consecutive
studs, and to easily determine the dimensions of the water
closet carrier so that its width would be approximately that
distance, as claimed. Pursuant to the Orthokinetics decision,
that is sufficient to comply with the second paragraph of §
112.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007