Appeal No. 95-2502
Application No. 07/763,625
that the claimed system includes the data bank and the
knowledge base described on pages 32-34 of the specification.
Claim 20 therefore defines the metes and bounds of the
invention with a reasonable degree of precision to satisfy the
test for definiteness in In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958, 189
USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
With regard to dependent claims 4 through 9, the
examiner’s reasons set forth on pages 3 and 5 of the answer
for rejecting these claims under the second paragraph of § 112
are unclear. In part, the examiner seems to be concerned with
the fact that these claims are not limited to the order in
which certain method steps are performed. Such an omission
does not necessarily render the claims indefinite. Instead,
such an omission here merely deals with the breadth of the
claims. Breadth, however, is not to be confused with
indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 691, 169 USPQ
597, 600 (CCPA 1971). We nevertheless consider claims 4
through 9 to be indefinite for reasons that follow.
It is unclear whether appellants intended the processing
step of claim 4 to merely recite further details of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007