Appeal No. 1998-1562 Page 5
Application No. 08/611,416
recitation of essential elements, steps, or necessary
structural cooperation between the elements." The examiner
stated with respect to claim 20 that "it is not clear how the
elements are configured and how they cooperate; also it is not
clear what constitute the holding and release positions."
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 6-8 and reply brief, pp.
1-2) that the rejection of claim 20 as being indefinite is not
warranted. We agree. Initially, we note that this rejection
is under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and thus, the
issue before us is whether claim 20 defines the metes and
bounds of the claimed invention with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. We have reviewed claim 20 and
fail to see any basis for the examiner's determination that
claim 20 omits recitation of essential elements, steps, or
necessary structural cooperation between the elements. In
that regard, the mere breadth of a claim does not in and of
itself make a claim indefinite. In any event, it is our view3
3Breadth of a claim is not to be equated with
indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597
(CCPA 1971).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007