Appeal No. 1999-0279 Page 7
Application No. 08/926,986
We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, pp. 6-7)
that the claims under appeal are definite (i.e., the claims do
fully apprise those of ordinary skill in the art of the scope
of the invention claimed), and thus satisfy the requirement of
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellants
regard as the invention. In this regard, we note that breadth
of a claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness. See In
re Miller, 441 F.2d 689,, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971). Thus,
while the two phrases in question may have a broad scope, the
phrases themselves do not introduce any indefiniteness into
the claimed subject matter.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 3 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
The enablement issue
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3 through 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007