Appeal 2006-1512
Application 10/131,455
“The legal standard for definiteness [under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112] is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the
art of its scope.” In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754,
1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The inquiry is to determine whether the claim sets
out and circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision
and particularity. The definiteness of the language employed in a claim
must be analyzed not in a vacuum, but in light of the teachings of the
particular application. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236,
238 (CCPA 1971). This is especially true in a situation involving a relative
claim expression since the Specification must provide some standard for
defining or measuring its meaning. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
After consideration of the present record, we determine that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized the scope of the
disputed relative claim language. Appellant has not directed us to specific
portions of the Specification, from which a clear meaning of the phrase
could be gleaned. That is, we have not been directed to portions of the
Specification that provide guidance to determine the “second distance” that
is selected based upon the material to be deposited on the substrate. The
claimed subject matter is directed to a ring for securing a substrate. The
claimed invention does not limit the material that is deposited on the
substrate. The Specification does not provide guidance for determining the
proper distance for coatings deposited in the chamber.
Appellant contends the claim language does not restrict the selection
of the second distance to be based only on the material to be deposited
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013