Appeal No. 1999-2089 Page 7
Application No. 08/517,181
in and of itself make a claim indefinite. In any event, it 3
is our view that claim 1 does set forth a cooperative
relationship of the elements recited. In view of the above,
we conclude that claim 1 does define the metes and bounds of
the claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision
and particularity.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our
conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
3Breadth of a claim is not to be equated with
indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597
(CCPA 1971).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007