Ex Parte BEGGINS - Page 7




          Appeal No. 2001-1284                                       Page 7           
          Application No. 08/792,765                                                  


               skill in the art would understand what is claimed when                 
               the claim is read in light of the specification.                       



               In Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co. , 758             
          F.2d 613, 624, 225 USPQ 634, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the court                
          added:                                                                      
               [i]f the claims, read in light of the specifications                   
               [sic], reasonably apprise those skilled in the art both                
               of the utilization and scope of the invention, and if                  
               the language is as precise as the subject matter                       
               permits, the courts can demand no more.                                



               Indeed, the fundamental purpose of a patent claim is to                
          define the scope of protection 7 and hence what the claim                   
          precludes others from doing.  All things considered, because a              
          patentee has the right to exclude others from making, using and             
          selling the invention covered by a United States letters patent,            
          the public must be apprised of what the patent covers, so that              
          those who approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a                
          patent may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries             
          of protection in evaluating the possibility of infringement and             
          dominance.  See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204,           
          208 (CCPA 1970).                                                            

               7 See In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 224             
          USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985).                                                  







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007