Appeal No. 96-0285
Application 07/900,528
of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co., v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
The examiner’s “Response to argument” section of the
answer reveals that what the examiner deems to be indefinite
is merely a matter of claim breadth. For example, the
examiner states that “since there are many different CMOS and
self-aligned double bipolar transistor processes, it is not
clear which process are [sic] being claimed” [answer, page 4].
Appellants correctly point out that the specific one of the
different CMOS and self-aligned double bipolar transistor
processes is irrelevant to their claimed invention. The
independent claims broadly include all of them. Likewise, the
examiner states that “the recited process steps are not
specific enough to differentiate the claimed bipolar
technologies” [id.]. Once again, the claim does not have to
differentiate which of the bipolar technologies is included
within the scope of the claim because all such technologies
are to be included. It must be remembered that breadth of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007