Appeal No. 95-4814
Application 07/935,507
OPINION
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007