Appeal No. 2001-1473
Application 08/946,736
568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984). When such words are employed, it
must be determined whether the underlying specification provides
some standard for measuring the degree, i.e., whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed when
the claim is read in light of the specification. Id.
The appellant’s specification (see pages 3, 4, 21) attaches
great importance to the “small” diameter grinding wheel in
achieving a more compact design as compared to the Christian
drill sharpener and large industrial sharpeners, and acknowledges
somewhat cryptically that “[s]mall grinding wheels have been used
in the past in drill sharpeners” (page 22). Nonetheless, neither
the specification, nor any other part of the record, provides any
sensible standard which would allow the artisan to determine with
a reasonable degree of precision and particularity the meaning of
the claim limitation in question. As a result, the scope of
claim 15, and claims 16, 17, 19, 27 and 28 which depend
therefrom, is indefinite.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 15 through 17,
19 and 27 through 31 is affirmed with respect to claims 29 and
30, and reversed with respect to claims 15 through 17, 19, 27, 28
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007