Appeal No. 95-2640
Application No. 07/949,289
Thus, reference to the specification makes it clear as to the
meaning of “minimal thickness.” That is, the thickness of
the shutter electrode should be as small as possible within
the confines of the practical. An exemplary thickness, less
than
0.2 mm, is disclosed. Therefore, the “minimal thickness” is
disclosed to be less than 0.2 mm and there is nothing
indefinite about it. The examiner may be confusing breadth
with
indefiniteness. Breadth is not to be equated with
indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693; 169 USPQ
597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
We also note, with some curiosity, that claim 17 calls
for a more specific thickness of the rim, i.e., “less than
approximately 0.2 mm,” yet the examiner saw fit to include
this claim in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Clearly, there is nothing
indefinite about this specific claim.
We now turn to the rejection based on prior art.
First, with regard to the rejection of claims 12 through
16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we will not sustain
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007