Appeal No. 95-0633
Application 07/728,426
of the invention clearer to the artisan. The examiner’s
concern about the breadth of the term providing should not be
equated with indefiniteness. Breadth and indefiniteness are
two different concepts. We are of the view that the artisan
who has read the disclosure of this application would clearly
understand the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 22-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
examiner’s rejections of claims 22-25. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 22-25 is reversed.
REVERSED
Kenneth W. Hairston )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007