Appeal No. 2001-0040
Application No. 09/037,105
USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although an inventor is indeed free to define the
specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable
clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
The examiner maintains that the use of the term “finger tip” in the claim limitation
“a portion of the hand other that the finger tip” is not well defined. The examiner
maintains that the claim limitation can be legitimately defined in many ways. (See
answer at page 4.) While we agree with the examiner that the term may be interpreted
differently, the examiner merely required appellant to clarify what portion of the finger
constitutes the “finger tip.” (See answer at page 4.) From our review of the
specification and relevant drawings, we do not find a specific definition of the term
“finger tip” in the specification as asserted by appellant. (See brief at page 4.) From
our review of the specification and drawings in view of the ordinary definition of
“fingerprint” as used in independent claim 1 as “an impression on a surface of the
curves formed by the ridges on a fingertip, especially such an impression made in ink
and used as a means of identification,” (emphasis added) (The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, copyright © 1992 by Houghton
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007