Appeal No. 2002-0510 Page 6
Application No. 09/139,309
dissipation of excess charge via an electrical path established by the described and
claimed layer configuration." (Appeal Br. at 7.) At the oral hearing, the examiner
withdrew his assertion, conceding that the term "less than about" did not render the
instant claims indefinite.
Second, the examiner asserts, " [i]n claim 5, it is not clear what 'distinct from the
layer of variable voltage material' means. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 3.) The
appellants argue, "[t]he word 'distinct,' as its ordinary and accustomed meaning would
suggest, along with the description in the specification in light of which the claims are to
be read, simply means that the two layers are distinguishable from one another."
(Appeal Br. at 8.)
"The test for definiteness is whether one skilled in the art would understand the
bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification." Miles Labs., Inc. v.
Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing
Orthokinetics Inc., v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081,
1088 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). "The general rule is, of course, that terms in the claim are to be
given their ordinary and accustomed meaning." Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v.
Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249, 48 USPQ2d 1117,
1121 (Fed. Cir. 1998); York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d
1568, 1572, 40 USPQ2d 1619, 1622 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). "It is well settled that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007