Appeal No. 1997-1416
Application 08/277,386
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co., v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984). Finally, the legal standard for definiteness is
whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art
of its scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d
1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Considering the first point raised by the examiner above
with respect to claim 17, we are of the view that the examiner
has confused the breadth of the claim with indefiniteness of
the invention. The first and second words of claim 17 have a
borrow condition as shown in Figure 1 of the application
[blocks 12, 14, 18 and 20] and as described in the
specification. The fact that the claim does not recite the
details of the borrowing condition goes to the breadth of the
claim rather than to its indefiniteness.
With respect to the second point raised by the examiner,
the subtracting step of claim 17 is not indefinite. At the
time the subtracting step takes place, the value subtracted is
whatever is the current value of that byte. The fact that the
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007