Appeal No. 96-0113 Application 07/848,779 It is not clear as [to] how the combinatorial minimization techniques are performed. Based on the foregoing, it is not evident why the examiner found that the terms "combinatorial minimization technique," "stochastic annealing," and "genetic algorithm" have to be more clearly explained in the claims. It is not the function of claims to define the meaning of terms. Rather, that is the role of the written specification. The following discussion in the examiner's answer at page 4 reveals more what the examiner had in mind: Appellant['s] argument is not persuasive. The "stochastic annealing" and "a genetic algorithm" are broad terms well known in the art. There are different methods for performing such "stochastic annealing" and "a genetic algorithm" functions. The claims are interpreted in the broad sense that appellant is intended to claim all the "stochastic annealing" and "a genetic algorithm" methods instead of the particular method as disclosed in the specification. The claims fail to clearly define the "stochastic annealing" and "a genetic algorithm" methods as recited in the specification. Accordingly, the claims are considered as vague, and indefinite. From the above-quoted explanation, it is evident that the examiner had no difficulty understanding what each of the terms means. Instead, the examiner found fault with the appellant's not limiting the claimed invention to any particular kind of stochastic annealing or a specific genetic algorithm. But that is confusing breadth with indefiniteness. With the broad -5-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007