Appeal No. 95-4962
Application No. 07/972,660
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the entire record before us,
including all of the arguments advanced by the examiner and
appellants in support of their respective positions. This
review leads us to conclude that the examiner’s rejections are
not well-founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain any of the
foregoing rejections. Our reasons for this determination
follow.
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 3 and
7 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In this
regard, the examiner alleges that “[t]he term ‘derivatives’
appearing in ‘derivatives of phthalic acid’. . . leads to
speculation what particular compounds are being claimed.”
Although the term in question appears to be broad, we note
that the broadness of claim language should not be equated
with indefiniteness within the meaning of § 112. See In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17, 194 USPQ 187, 194 n.17
(CCPA 1977);
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007