Appeal No. 1996-2163
Application 08/106,541
acoustical wave length of antenna operation. Claim 18 is not an originally filed claim since
it was submitted as a part of Paper No. 15, on May 18, 1994 after the filing date of the
present application.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 17-32 under the second paragraph of 35
USC § 112, it is to be noted that to comply with the requirements of the cited paragraph, a
claim must set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity when read in light of the disclosure and the teachings of the prior
art as it would be by the artisan. Note In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ
187, 194 (CCPA 1977); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA
1971).
The examiner’s various concerns about the use of the words “smoothly, continuously
and gradual” in the claims on appeal do not cause the claims on appeal to be rendered
indefinite. The use of these words is consistent within the exact and same usage in the
specification as filed. Although they are terms of degree, there is a reasonable
understanding the reader would have of their use based on common ordinary meanings of
these terms. Additionally, based upon the earlier noted Burnside publication and
appellant’s own prior patent, there appears to be a certain specified meaning well
understood by the artisan. Furthermore, when interpreting a claim, words of the claim are
generally given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears from the
specification or the file history that they were used differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch,
Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840
(Fed. Cir. 1993). A claim is construed in light of its description in the specification as well
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007