Appeal No. 95-3411 Application 08/040,960 subject matter are distinct. In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396, 186 USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975). The purpose of the statutory section is to provide reasonable notice as to the boundaries of the patent protection involved. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). Only a reasonable degree of certainty is required. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977). The examiner stated (answer at 3): "In claims 4 and 7, the use of 'being accessible' is vague and indefinite since it does not positively point out the operation of the system." However, the issue raised by the examiner does not concern indefiniteness. We see nothing vague or indefinite about the term "being accessible." It may be broad in that it covers any manner of giving access or being accessed, but it is not indefinite. Breadth does not equal indefiniteness. Additionally, the examiner stated (answer at 3-4): "[I]t is not clear what means provides the recited branching through multiple paths of information." The "branching" referred to by the examiner is evidently that recited in a whereby clause in the preamble of both independent claims 4 and 7. The whereby clause evidently provides a summary or general overview of the combined -6-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007