Appeal No. 2001-1372 Page 3
Application No. 08/018,841
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 27) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 24) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the Davis patent, to the Popoff affidavit
(Paper No. 16), and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. Having reviewed all of the evidence before us, we make the determinations
which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
Several of the examiner’s criticisms of the claims on appeal arise from the use of
relative terms, or terms of degree, therein. Appellants are correct that terms of degree
are permitted in claims and do not necessarily render claims indefinite. When a word of
degree is used, such as the term "relatively" in claim 30, it is necessary to determine
whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. See
Seattle Box Company, Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221
USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, in deciding this appeal, for each of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007