Appeal No. 2005-0821
Application No. 09/960,356
1994). If one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of
the claim when read in light of the specification, then the claim
satisfies section 112 paragraph two. See Miles Labs., Inc. v.
Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed. Cir.
1993). The definiteness of the claim language employed must be
analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings
of the prior art and the disclosure of the particular
specification as it would be interpreted by one possessing
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Angstadt, supra.
The examiner states that the word “pulse” is unclear because
it is not known whether this word refers to current or voltage
pulses (Answer, page 3). The examiner also argues that it is
improper to read a limitation from the specification into a claim
(id.). However, as discussed above, a proper analysis under
section 112, second paragraph, does not require reading a
limitation from the specification into the claim but interpreting
the claimed language in light of the specification as it would
have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Here
the specification clearly teaches that the “pulsation of a
current” flowing through the PN junction is measured by the
analyzing circuit, and therefore one of ordinary skill in this
art would have been apprised that the scope of the word “pulse”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007