Appeal No. 2001-2176
Application 09/031,186
degree of precision and particularity. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). In determining
whether this standard is met, the definiteness of the language
employed in the claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but
always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by
one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.
Id. The purpose of this requirement is to provide those who
would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area
circumscribed by the claims of a patent with the adequate notice
demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and
accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and
evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance. In re
Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970).
The following problems render the scope of the appealed
claims indefinite.
Claim 1 recites a toroidal supporting body and “a sealing
body comprising a dynamically stressed sealing lip made of an
elastomeric material which at least partially encloses the
supporting body.” Normally, the words “made of an elastomeric
material which at least partially encloses the supporting body”
would be understood as referring to the immediately preceding
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007