Appeal No. 2000-1019
Application No. 08/623,852
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). As set forth in Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical
Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1030 (Fed. Cir.
1991):
The statute requires that “[t]he specification
shall conclude with one or more claims particularly
pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter
which the applicant regards as his invention.” A
decision as to whether a claim is invalid under this
provision requires a determination whether those
skilled in the art would understand what is claimed.
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co.,
758 F.2d 613, 624, 225 USPQ 634, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(Claims must “reasonably apprise those skilled in the
art” as to their scope and be “as precise as the
subject matter permits.”).
The claim language must define the scope of the claimed
subject matter with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. Furthermore, claim language 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 skill in the pertinent
art.” In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA
1971).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007