Appeal No. 1996-3955
Application 08/170,601
(“Breadth is not indefiniteness.”); In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d
904, 909, 164 USPQ 642, 645-46 (CCPA 1970). For the above
reasons, claim 1, as it would have been interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and
prior art, fails to set out and circumscribe a particular area
with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
Consequently, claim 1 and the claims which depend therefrom
are indefinite.
In some instances, it may be impossible to determine
whether or not claimed subject matter is anticipated by or
would have been obvious over references because the claims are
so indefinite that considerable speculation and assumptions
would be required regarding the meaning of terms employed in
the claims with
respect to the scope of the claims. See In re Steele, 305
F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). In other
instances, however, it is possible to make a reasonable,
conditional interpretation of claims adequate for the purpose
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007