Appeal No. 2006-0182
Application No. 10/254,862
weight percent range of the solvent, thereby establishing this lexicon with respect to the
solvent content.” Id.
While we agree with the examiner that claim 5 could have been more artfully
drafted, in our view, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
concentration recited in claim 5 references the concentration of the solvent in terms of
weight percent. “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. If the claims
read in light of the specification reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope
of the invention, § 112 demands no more. The degree of precision necessary for
adequate claims is a function of the nature of the subject matter.” Miles Lab., Inc. v.
Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ 2d 1123, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 5 is
not so “insolubly ambiguous” to find indefiniteness. See, Exxon Research and
Engineering Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375, 60 USPQ2d 1272, 1276 (Fed.
Cir. 2001).
The rejection of claim 5 for indefiniteness is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007