Appeal No. 1998-1669
Application No. 08/508,563
circumscribed by the claims of a patent may readily and
accurately determine the boundaries of protection in
evaluating the possibility of infringement and dominance. In
re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA
1970).
A claim complies with the second paragraph of section 112
if, when read in light of the specification, it reasonably
apprises those skilled in the art of the scope of the
invention. Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802
F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applying these principles to the present case, we are
convinced that appealed claims fail to distinctly claim what
the appellant regards as his invention for the reasons we have
already discussed. It is our opinion that one skilled in the
relevant art would not be able to determine the scope of
appealed claim 1, because the meanings of recitations (i) and
(ii) are unclear. Hence, one skilled in the relevant art
would not be able to ascertain what appealed claim 1 covers.
Here, the appellant has failed to meet the burden of precise
claim drafting. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007