Ex Parte BEGGINS - Page 6




          Appeal No. 2001-1284                                       Page 6           
          Application No. 08/792,765                                                  


               The term "quick plunge" is a term of degree.  When a word of           
          degree is used, 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                  
          against the potential use of such terms as the proverbial nose of           
          wax.6                                                                       


               In Seattle Box, the court set forth the following                      
          requirements for terms of degree:                                           
               [w]hen a word of degree is used the district court must                
               determine whether the patent's specification provides                  
               some standard for measuring that degree.  The trial                    
               court must decide, that is, whether one of ordinary                    


               6 See White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 51-52 (1886) and                   
          Townsend Engineering Co. v. HiTec Co. Ltd., 829 F.2d 1086, 1089-            
          91, 4 USPQ2d 1136, 1139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1987).                                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007