Appeal No. 1999-0486
Application No. 08/633,389
apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31
USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The inquiry is merely to determine whether the
claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularity. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
(CCPA 1971). The definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed -- not in a
vacuum, but 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 level of skill in the
pertinent art. Id.
Instant claim 1 sets forth “a signal compensation circuit...comprising an A/D
converter...and a digital processor for adjusting the digitized (R,G,B) signals....” Claim
5, which depends from 1, recites “wherein the signal compensation circuit comprises”
an A/D converter, a sampling circuit, and a brightness compensation circuit. Claim 5 is
unclear with respect to whether the “signal compensation circuit” is to be made up of all
the relevant elements set forth in claim 1 and claim 5, or whether the elements listed in
claim 5 are to replace the structures previously set forth in the base claim.1 Claim 5
thus does not reasonably apprise those of skill in the art of its scope.
In the case that claim 5 may be interpreted as “wherein the signal compensation
circuit further comprises” -- that is, further limits claim 1 by the recitation of additional
1 If claim 5 were to be interpreted as replacing the elements previously set forth in the base claim,
then claim 5 would fail to pass muster under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph. By removing elements
from claim 1, claim 5 would not contain all the limitations of claim 1.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007