Appeal No. 96-2121
Application 08/252,984
Breadth should not be confused with indefiniteness. In re
Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 18-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The anticipation rejection
In Paper No. 26, dated January 20, 1995, the examiner stated
in page 3 that claims 18 and 23 are rejected as being anticipated
by the IDT machine disclosed in the Business Week articles and
admitted by the appellant as prior art. Whether or not the
appellant admitted that the IDT machine constitutes prior art is
irrelevant. An admission is not necessary for the IDT machine to
be regarded as prior art.
A plethora of evidence has been provided by the examiner to
show or demonstrate that the IDT machine was in existence and
operational in the United States more than one year prior to the
"April 24, 1992" effective filing date of the appellant’s
application. See the examiner’s answer at page 18 and Exhibit E1
attached to the examiner’s answer. The appellant chose not to
reply to this body of evidence and has not disputed that the IDT
machine was in existence and operational in the United States
more than one year prior to the appellant’s effective filing date
of April 24, 1992. On pages 16 to 17 of the answer, the examiner
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007