Appeal No. 1998-2916
Application No. 08/606,975
Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Acceptability of
the
claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill in the
art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
After reviewing the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with Appellant (Brief, page 7) that no ambiguity or
lack of clarity exists in the claim language. While the
Examiner has objected to the language “equal to or greater
than 0.4" in independent claims 1 and 5, no legal authority
has been cited by the Examiner for the asserted principle that
a recitation of an upper limit is required to establish the
metes and bounds of the claims. While an open-ended
recitation of a range of values is undisputedly broader that a
bounded range recitation, it is well settled that the breadth
of a claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness. In re
Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 692, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007