Appeal No. 2000-0523
Application 08/583,307
The examiner’s criticism of claims 2 and 8 as being
indefinite simply because the functional limitations therein
are not supported by a corresponding recitation of structure
is also unsound. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with
defining something by what it does rather than by what it is.
In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA
1981); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228
(CCPA 1971).
As for examiner’s comments relating to claims 9 and 10,
the phrases at issue clearly refer back to the corresponding
phrases in parent claims 1 and 2, and the meaning of the first
and second set of characteristics recited in claim 9 is
readily apparent given the detailed definition thereof in the
claim.
Thus, the examiner’s position that the subject matter
recited in claims 1 through 17 is indefinite is not well
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007