Appeal No. 96-2298
Application 08/147,179
element as the spacer and/or sleeve. The examiner also makes
reference to the language of claims 3 and 13 as regards the
relative location of the separator.
Having read claims 1, 3 and 13, in particular, in light
of the underlying disclosure, it is quite apparent to this
panel of the board that the language criticized by the
examiner in the claims is broad, not indefinite. Just because
a claim is broad does not mean that it is indefinite. See In
re Miller, 441 F.2d
689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971) and Ex parte
Scherberich, 201 USPQ 397, 398 (Bd. App. 1977).
The specification (pages 4 through 11) clearly reveals that
the seal at the distal end of the first leg 22 is not the same
element as the separately defined spacer 38 and/or sleeve. The
language of the claims must, therefore, be understood as
reciting these distinct entities. As to the questioned location
of the spacer and seal recited in claims 1 and 13, we find that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007