Appeal No. 97-1627 Page 19
Application No. 08/202,991
We agree that some of the claims do not recite the number
of layers, L/W ratio, and total thickness of the sensor. This
omission, however, does not offend the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112. While the claim language under consideration
may be broad, breadth is not indefiniteness. Instead, the
second paragraph simply requires that the claims, read in
light of the specification, reasonably apprise one skilled in
the art of the scope of the invention.
The examiner has not articulated any reason why one so
skilled would have any difficulty ascertaining the inventions’
scope. He did not satisfy the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of indefiniteness. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, and under 35 U.S.C. §
112, ¶ 2, is reversed.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007