Appeal No. 1999-2089 Page 6
Application No. 08/517,181
paragraph, is appropriate. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
We have reviewed both the specific objections and
arguments (answer, pp. 3 and 4) raised by the examiner in the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and the
arguments thereagainst advanced by the appellants (brief, pp.
6-9 and reply brief, pp. 2-3) that the rejection is not
warranted. After
review of the claims under appeal, we find ourselves in
agreement with the appellants’ position in this matter.
Specifically, we have reviewed claim 1 and fail to find any
basis for the examiner's determination that claim 1 is
indefinite (e.g., omits recitation of essential elements,
steps, or necessary structural cooperation between the
elements) for the reasons set forth by the appellants.
Furthermore, we note that the mere breadth of a claim does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007