Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 5
Application No. 08/810,442
sentences in “the specification, page 7,” (Reply Br. at 12),
clarify the meaning.
“The test for definiteness is whether one skilled in the art
would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of
the specification. Orthokinetics Inc., v. Safety Travel Chairs,
Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
If the claims read in light of the specification reasonably
apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention,
Section 112 demands no more. Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).” Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870,
875, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Here, claim 3 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "said second key is of triple-DES type.” One
skilled in the art would understand DES to be a type of
encryption algorithm, however, rather than a type of key. See
Schneier, 270 (“DES is a block cipher. . . . DES is a symmetric
algorithm.”) The sentences relied on by the appellant confirm
such a distinction by referring to “single-DES encryption,”
(Spec. at 7), and “more complex triple-DES encryption. .
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007