Appeal No. 2001-0291 Page 5
Application No. 08/772,559
use of such terminology as effective depth, length of the
edge, area of the edge, crush strength, Sy, bearing area and
total bearing area on the basis that the claims provide no
definition of their physical association with the structure of
the guardrail system and that there are no reference points
given for these design parameters to define the measured
values (answer, p. 3).
The examiner acknowledges that the above-mentioned terms
and phrases are defined in the specification, but finds fault
with the fact that these terms are not defined in the claims
themselves (answer, p. 7). It is well settled, however, that
it is entirely proper to use the specification to interpret
what appellants meant by a word or phrase in a claim. In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir.
1994). In this instance, the use of appellants’ specification
to interpret the claim language is entirely proper. When read
in light of the specification, the above-mentioned terms of
the claims are, in our opinion, clear and definite.
With regard to the functional language in claim 2, the
examiner concedes that functional language is permissible in a
claim, but urges that there must be sufficient structure
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007