Appeal No. 1998-0408
Application No. 08/176,861
shown by evidence, that there are any established standards
known to those of ordinary skill in the field of appellants'
invention for determining the acceptable range of tear
resistance to achieve the recited function. In this regard,
appellants' brief (page 5) refers to "safety standards [which]
may change from year to year, and from children to adults,"
but does not point to any such established safety standards.
While appellants' specification discloses one example of an
ideal paper (eight point KIMDURA waterproof paper) for use in
the invention and while the tear resistance of that paper is
presumably known in the art, the reference to one example
which falls within the scope of the invention is not
sufficient, alone, to establish the full range of tear
resistance covered by the claims.
For the foregoing reasons, it is not apparent to us how
one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine
5(...continued)
metal" limitation not indefinite) is misplaced, in that those cases involved
functional limitations which were not per se critical to the invention and
were of such a nature that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be
able to ascertain whether or not a particular structure or process met those
limitations. In contrast, appellants' specification (page 2, lines 9-12 and
25-27) and arguments (brief, page 8) illustrate that the degree of tear
resistance is a critical feature of appellants' invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007