Appeal No. 97-1627 Page 18
Application No. 08/202,991
Definiteness
We begin our consideration of the definiteness of claims
1-19 by recalling that the test for the definiteness of a
claim is whether one skilled in the art would understand the
bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification.
If the claim read in light of the specification would
reasonably apprise one so skilled of the scope of the
invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112 demands no more. Miles Labs., Inc.
v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). Breadth of a claim, moreover, is not to be
equated with its indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689,
693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971). With this in mind, we
analyze the examiner’s rejection.
The examiner begins his rejection by alleging, “[t]he
disclosure clearly indicates critical limitations for the
number of layers, L/W ratio, and total thickness.” (Final
Rejection at 3.) He ends it by concluding, “these claims are
indefinite and incomplete for failing to clearly and
completely recite the critical features of the sensor.”
(Id. at 4.)
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007