Appeal No. 2001-0107
Application No. 09/143,505
that gives a clear meaning to this term; nor is there a clear
definition in the specification. Relative terms are not per se
indefinite, provided there is some reasonable measure of their
scope. See Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc.,
731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (a term of
degree is definite if the specification “provides some standard
for measuring that degree. . . . that is, whether one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim
is read in light of the specification.”). Appellant has
discussed the extent of blocking obtained by the claimed
invention (specification at 9; cited by Appellant in Paper No. 5
at 3), but it is not clear whether the discussion was directed to
the scope of all of the claims, or whether that construction was
limited to the merely particular embodiments within the scope of
claim 1. This issue, which is not before us for review, should
be addressed in the first instance by the examiner and Appellant
in view of the extensive considerations of facts and context
required for its resolution.
b. While the present posture of the case does not require
that we address the merits of the arguments with respect to the
dependent claims, we observe that the examiner has not supported
the rejections for obviousness of claimed subject matter
- 14 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007