Appeal No. 96-1808
Application 08/204,119
because a claim is not indefinite merely because it is broad.
See In re Gardner, 427 F.d. 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA
1970) (“Breadth is not indefiniteness.”); In re Borkowski, 422
F.d. 904, 909, 164 USPQ 642, 645-46 (CCPA 1970).
Appellants’ specification states that tank 92 is a media
tank (page 10, line 11) and that during operation, liquid
media flows from the media tank 92 to the vessels (page 11,
lines 19-20). The examiner has not explained why “media
source”, when interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art
in light of disclosures such as this in appellants’
specification, and in light of the prior art, would not set
out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 25 or claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-8, 10-37 and 45-50 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Schneider ‘716 in view of Cosgrove,
Schneider ‘657 and Smolen, and of claims 25 and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
-11-11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007