Appeal No. 95-4047
Application 07/931,206
of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner argues that “a portion” in appellants’ claim
1 is speculative and that the claim does not set forth the
metes and bounds of the invention because is does not specify
the portion at which the sheets are attached (supplemental
answer, page 3). The term “a portion” broadly encompasses any
portion, but the fact that the term is broad does not mean
that it is indefinite. See In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788,
166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970) (“Breadth is not
indefiniteness.”); In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909, 164
USPQ 642, 645-46 (CCPA 1970). The examiner has not explained,
and it is not apparent, why “a portion” in appellants’ claim
1, when interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in
view of appellants’ specification, would not have set out and
circumscribed a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. We therefore reverse the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 4, the examiner argues that “transparent
grades” and “film grade” are nebulous (supplemental answer,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007