Appeal No. 1997-3678
Application No. 08/485,161
2. Claim 5 appears to be drawn to a double inclusion of
subject matter already present in claim 1.
3. The claims in a number of instances include words of
degree, e.g., in claim 1, line 9, “substantially” flooded; in
claim 3, lines 2,3 and claim 34, lines 2,3, “significant”
portion; claim 35, line 2, “substantially” 60 µm; and claim
36, line 2, “substantially” 40 µm. When a word of degree is
used, it must be determined whether an underlying
specification provides some standard for measuring that
degree. See Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). The examiner should assess each of the noted
terms in the context used, and as they might be understood by
one skilled in the art at issue, to ascertain whether they are
each definite in meaning.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7, 9, and
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007