Appeal No. 1999-1169
Application No. 08/442,441
be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill
in the pertinent art. Id. The purpose here is to provide
those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach
the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent with the
adequate notice demanded by due
process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately
determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate
the possibility of infringement and dominance. In re Hammack,
427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970).
Claims 56 and 57, the two independent claims on appeal,
require the grinding wheel recited therein to include, inter
alia, a rim surface of predetermined width and a plurality of
abrasive pieces secured to or carried by the rim surface and
each having a width “substantially the same as said
predetermined width of said rim surface.” In their brief, the
appellants attach great importance to this limitation as a
patentable distinction over the prior art; however, the use of
the words “substantially the same” to define the relationship
between the widths of the rim surface and the abrasive pieces
poses a definiteness problem.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007