Appeal No. 2005-1745
Application No. 09/161,680
pertinent art.” In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
The test of indefiniteness is not what the examiner has been able to locate in
searching the prior art, but what one having ordinary skill in the art would have
understood from reading the claims in light of the specification disclosure, in conjunction
with what is known in the art. That is, the words in the claims “are examined through
the viewing glass of a person skilled in the art.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1326, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005), quoting Home Diagnostics, Inc. v.
LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1358, 72 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See
also, Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1119, 65 USPQ2d 1051, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 2002)(patent documents are meant to be “a concise statement for persons in
the field”) and In re Nelson, 280 F.2d 172, 181, 126 USPQ 242, 251 (CCPA 1960)(“The
descriptions in patents are not addressed to the public generally, to lawyers or to
judges, but, as section 112 says, to those skilled in the art to which the invention
pertains or with which it is most nearly connected”). Our reviewing court explained in
Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477, 45 USPQ2d 1429,
1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998):
It is the person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention through whose eyes
the claims are construed. Such person is deemed to read the words used in the
patent documents with an understanding of their meaning in the field, and to
have knowledge of any special meaning and usage in the field. The inventor’s
words that are used to describe the invention – the inventor’s lexicography –
must be understood and interpreted by the court as they would be understood
and interpreted by a person in that field of technology.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007