Appeal No. 1998-2287
Application No. 08/211,157
precludes others from doing. Because a patent confers upon5
the patentee the right to exclude others from making, using
and selling the claimed invention, 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 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).
Applying these principles to the present case, we are
convinced that the appealed claims fail to distinctly claim
what the appellant regards as the invention for the reasons we
have discussed above. That is, it is our opinion that one
skilled in the relevant art would not be able to determine the
scope of the appealed claims with any reasonable degree of
certainty, because the meaning of the term “substantially
amorphous” is unclear. Hence, the appellant has failed to
meet his burden of precise claim drafting. Morris, 127 F.3d
5 In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 224
USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007