Appeal No. 96-3407
Application 08/325,549
criticism, however, goes to the breadth of the claim and it is
well settled that breadth alone is not to be equated with
indefiniteness. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17,
194 USPQ 187, 194 n.17 (CCPA 1977); In re Miller,
441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971); In re
Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970) and
Ex parte Scherberich, 201 USPQ 397, 398 (Bd. App. 1977).
Every structural detail necessary to perform a recited
function need not be set forth. Here, we see no reason why
one of ordinary skill in this art would not be reasonably
apprised of the scope of the claims in question.
As to the examiner’s criticism of claim 18 (lines 18-22),
we think that it is readily apparent that the top (64) and
bottom (42) plates can be considered to help "retain" the
elongated flexible member within the longitudinal extent of
the column 44 as it is being wound thereabout. As to the
examiner's criticism of claim 22, the terminology in question
is not even functional in character but, instead, describes
Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA 1981) and
In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA
1971).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007