Appeal No. 2000-0142 Page 7
Application No. 08/705,569
“The test for definiteness is whether one skilled in the
art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in
light of the specification. Orthokinetics Inc., v. Safety
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088
(Fed. Cir. 1986). If the claims read in light of the
specification reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of
the scope of the invention, Section 112 demands no more.
Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367,
1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” Miles Labs., Inc. v.
Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
Here, claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "the first means and the reference resistor
comprise mutually separate components from components of the
current amplifier ...." For its part, the specification
discloses that “[a]ccording to the invention, the current
amplifier on the one hand and the means I and the reference
resistor on the other hand exclusively comprise mutually
separate components, i.e. the current amplifier on the one
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007