Appeal No. 1999-1169
Application No. 08/442,441
Although § 112, ¶ 2, does not require exact precision in
claim language, definiteness problems often arise when words
of degree (such as “substantially the same”) are used in a
claim. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc.,
731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
When such words
are employed, it must be determined whether the underlying
specification provides some standard for measuring the degree,
i.e., whether one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of
the specification. Id. The appellants’ specification
provides no meaningful standard for measuring how close in
dimension the widths of the rim surface and abrasive pieces
have to be in order to be considered “substantially the same.”
This lack of guidance is exacerbated by seemingly inconsistent
illustrations of the claimed width relationship in the
appellants’ drawings. For example, Figures 9 and 11 show a
grinding wheel embodiment wherein the widths of the rim
surface and abrasive pieces differ so significantly that they
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007