Appeal No. 96-1943
Application No. 08/147,008
with respect to claim 8, the examiner considers that there is
no expressly set forth structure in the claimed "manipulator"
which would provide the claimed three degree-of-freedom
movement. The examiner also apparently believes that the
cradle sections of claims 5 and 6, must be structurally
connected to other elements. Such criticisms, however, all go
to the breadth of the structure set forth, and just because a
claim is broad does not mean that it is indefinite. See In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17, 194 USPQ 187, 194 n.17
(CCPA 1977); In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597,
600 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ
138, 140 (CCPA 1970) and Ex parte Scherberich, 201 USPQ 397,
398 (Bd. App. 1977). Apparently, the examiner has analyzed
the above-noted recitations in light of the appellants'
disclosure and then decided what specific elements he believes
should be recited to describe the manipulators, locks,
adjustment mechanisms and motion brakes. Such an approach is
improper. As explained by the court in In re Steppan, 394
F.2d 1013, 1019, 156 USPQ 143, 148 (CCPA 1967):
The problem, in essence, is thus one of determining
who shall decide how best to state what the
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007