In re Foster (438 F.2d 1011, 1971 Mar 18)

Decision Parameters

Decisions It Cites Decisions That Cite It
Rules & Quotes
[TECHNOLOGICAL] {1} Therefore, giving the claims the broadest interpretation reasonable, we find that those claims limited to "electrical signals" (claims 1-3) read only upon machine implementations of the process since the signals in those claims are limited to a form recognized in the art as limited to machine implementation. On the other hand, we find that the term "signals" alone (claims 4, 7-13, and 15-18) has many possible meanings and may read on visible patterns, which may be subjected to manual manipulation. Since these claims are not commensurate with appellants' own definition of what they are seeking to cover and thus go beyond that which "applicant regards as his invention," we feel that claims 4, 7-13, and 15-18 fail to comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. ยง 112. This is despite the fact that we have already found that the claims involve statutory subject matter.


Review Articles and Papers

Brief Comments and Observations

JSON Specification