Appeal No. 2002-2319 Page 8
Application No. 09/129,197
sling with reference to the length of an arm of a patient. Inasmuch as patients, like
automobiles, come in various sizes, it is true that a particular sling on which appellant’s
claim 19 reads may have a panel, when in a relaxed state, having a lesser length than
the length of one patient’s arm but not another patient’s arm. This, in our opinion,
merely gives the scope of the claim some breadth; it does not render the claim
indefinite. Just because a claim is broad does not mean that it is indefinite. See In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d at 1016 n.17, 194 USPQ at 194 n.17; In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689,
693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ
138, 140 (CCPA 1970) and Ex parte Scherberich, 201 USPQ 397, 398 (Bd. App. 1977).
As to the examiner’s third criticism of claim 19, with regard to the points of
measurement of the arm length, the claim is quite clear that the arm length at issue is
measured from the elbow end (i.e., the outside of the elbow) to the portion of the hand
which is engaged by the recited member. Claim 19 does not limit the portion of the
hand engaged by the member to a particular portion of the hand, although the
specification (page 4) specifies the portion of the hand between the thumb and fingers.
Thus, claim 19 is sufficiently broad to encompass a sling having a member which would
engage any portion of the hand of a patient wearing the sling. Any sling meeting the
panel length limitation of claim 19 must have a panel which has a lesser length than the
length of a patient’s arm from the elbow end to the portion of the hand which the
member of the sling would engage. The fact that one sling having a member which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007