Appeal No. 1997-2194 Page 7
Application No. 08/195,018
smaller than 70 mN/m) "lacks a lower limit which would read on
no surface tension."
The examiner has not explained why the claimed language
cannot be understood with a reasonable degree of certainty.
In fact, the examiner was able to determine that the
limitation in question was readable on no surface tension. In
our opinion the metes and bounds of the claimed language can
be easily understood. Furthermore, it is well established
that the mere breadth of a claim does not in and of itself
make a claim indefinite.2
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
The written description rejection
2Breadth of a claim is not to be equated with
indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ
597, 600 (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