Ex parte VALA et al. - Page 4

         Appeal No. 95-4814                                                        
         Application 07/935,507                                                    

                   We have carefully considered the entire record                  
         before us, and we will reverse the indefiniteness rejection,              
         sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 20,            
         and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 3 through 5, 8            
         through 19 and 21 through 25.                                             
                   Turning first to the indefiniteness rejection, some             
         of the claims on appeal are indeed broad, and could have                  
         included specific structure.  We find that none of the claims             
         on appeal, however, recites only one element as asserted by               
         the examiner (Answer, page 4).  It is well known that                     
         appellants are permitted to claim their invention in broad                
         terms if the disclosure supported such broad terms.  Even if              
         the claims are broader than they otherwise would have been if             
         specific structure had been specified, breadth is not to be               
         equated with indefiniteness.  See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689,             
         693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).                                       
         The indefiniteness rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 18                 
         through 25 is reversed.                                                   
                   The first question is whether appellants have                   
         complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C.  120 for claiming            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007