Appeal 2007-0930
Application 10/014,763
1
2 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
3 The purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure that the
4 claims delineate the scope of the invention using language that adequately
5 notifies the public of the patentee’s right to exclude. Datamize, LLC v.
6 Plumtree Software, Inc,. 417 F.3d 1342, 1347, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1804 (Fed.
7 Cir. 2005) (citing: Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 341 F.3d
8 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Office personnel must rely on Appellants’
9 disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims.
10 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d
11 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a
12 claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing
13 in the specification, which is improper.’” In re Cruciferous Sprout
14 Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed. Cir. 2002)
15 (emphasis in original) (citing Intervet Am., Inc. v. Kee-Vet Labs., Inc., 887
16 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “The scope of
17 claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion
18 of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See
19 Application of Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (noting that
20 “[a] step requiring the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction
21 might be objectionable as rendering a claim indefinite”). Some objective
22 standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the
23 scope of the claimed invention.” Datamize v. Plumtree 417 F.3d at 1350, 75
24 USPQ2d at 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005). (Emphasis omitted).
25
26
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013