Appeal No. 95-3411
Application 08/040,960
subject matter are distinct. In re Merat, 519 F.2d
1390, 1396, 186 USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975).
The purpose of the statutory section is to provide reasonable
notice as to the boundaries of the patent protection involved.
In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208
(CCPA 1970). Only a reasonable degree of certainty is required.
In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA
1977).
The examiner stated (answer at 3): "In claims 4 and 7, the
use of 'being accessible' is vague and indefinite since it does
not positively point out the operation of the system." However,
the issue raised by the examiner does not concern indefiniteness.
We see nothing vague or indefinite about the term "being
accessible." It may be broad in that it covers any manner of
giving access or being accessed, but it is not indefinite.
Breadth does not equal indefiniteness.
Additionally, the examiner stated (answer at 3-4): "[I]t is
not clear what means provides the recited branching through
multiple paths of information." The "branching" referred to by
the examiner is evidently that recited in a whereby clause in the
preamble of both independent claims 4 and 7. The whereby clause
evidently provides a summary or general overview of the combined
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007