Appeal No. 1999-0956
Application No. 08/584,084
define the whole leading end section to move in such a
second direction relative to the first direction in
which the middle and lagging end sections move in. As
shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B, the leading end section 35
does not merely move in a second direction but pivot[s]
about [the] first fold line. [Answer, page 5.]
We do not agree with the examiner that claim 25 is
misleading. While the claim terminology describing the manner in
which the leading end section moves is somewhat broad, breadth
does not automatically render the claim indefinite. In re
Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971). In the
present instance, we consider that the content of claim 28 can be
reasonably understood, notwithstanding the breadth thereof.
Thus, the examiner’s first reason for rejecting the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is not well taken.
The examiner’s second reason for rejecting the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is that, according to the
examiner, the limitations “means for defining a fold path” and
“means for folding the leading end section over the first side of
the middle section” in claim 39 contradict one another because
they misleadingly imply that these “means” are distinct from one
another. The examiner takes a similar position with respect to
the “means for folding” and “means for flipping” limitations of
claim 48.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007