Appeal No. 2000-0182 Page 12
Application No. 08/831,327
Our review of independent claim 1 reveals that we are unable
to derive a proper understanding of the scope and content
thereof. Specifically, the terminology "increasing substantially
monotonically" in independent claim 1 raises a definiteness issue
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The term "substantially" is a term of degree. When a word
of degree is used, such as the term "substantially" in claim 1,
it is necessary to determine whether the specification provides
some standard for measuring that degree. See Seattle Box
Company, Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d
818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Admittedly, the fact that some claim language, such as the
term of degree mentioned supra, may not be precise, does not
automatically render the claim indefinite under the second
paragraph of § 112. Seattle Box, supra. Nevertheless, the need
to cover what might constitute insignificant variations of an
invention does not amount to a license to resort to the unbridled
use of such terms without appropriate constraints to guard
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007