Appeal No. 1997-3237
Application 08/266,081
paragraph. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 715, 218 USPQ 195,
197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904,
909, 164 USPQ 642, 645-46 (CCPA 1970)). “The legal standard
for definiteness is whether a claim reasonably appraises those
of skill in the art of its scope.” In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d
1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Upon a careful review of the claim language and the
specification, we find that “operating said electric motor in
a regeneration mode” and “providing a battery to receive
regeneration current from said motor,” as recited in claims 1
and 6, are proper method steps. It is clear from the
specification as a whole and page 1 specifically, that the
“regeneration mode” occurs when the motor operates as a
generator exerting a torque on the driver mechanism and
providing current to the power source which is generally a
battery. The specification on pages 2 and 5 also provides
adequate details for “providing a battery” such that any
person skilled in the art would immediately understand the
step of connecting a battery and directing regeneration
current from the motor. We further find that specification on
pages 5 and 6 discloses the efficiency curve of the motor in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007