Appeal No. 96-1904
Application 08/164,854
surfaces” lacks descriptive support in the original
disclosure. 7
The argument advanced by appellant (brief, pages 6
and 7) that the disclosure is clearly enabling simply does not
convince us that the subject matter at issue in independent
claim 1 and claims 3 through 8 dependent thereon is
descriptively supported by the original disclosure.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
We reverse the rejection of claims 20 and 21.
We certainly comprehend the examiner’s perception of
these claims as being quite broad. However, the circumstance
that a claim is broad does not automatically render the claim
indefinite. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ
7We note that appellant understands (brief, page 10)
claim 1 as addressing keyboard segments which may be operated
“independently of supporting surfaces,” as compared to prior
art keyboards that require supporting surfaces (McCall, Lahr,
Rader, and Goldstein).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007