Appeal No. 96-0285
Application 07/900,528
claims is not equated with indefiniteness of the claims. In
re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
The examiner’s objections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 improperly
address the breadth of the claims rather than the
indefiniteness of the claims.
In summary, we agree with appellants that the artisan
having considered the specification of this application would
have no difficulty ascertaining the scope of the invention
recited in claim 1-19. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-
19 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not
sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claim 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of Lechaton . 2
2We note that Lechaton does not qualify as prior art
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Lechaton does qualify as prior art,
however, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) or (e) so that we have
considered this rejection as if made under either of these
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007