Appeal No. 1996-3167 Page 10
Application No. 07/974,834
forth by the appellants. In addition, we note that the mere
breadth of features or elements recited in a claim does not in
and of itself make a claim indefinite.2
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 26, 28 to 31, 34,
35 and 41 to 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed.
The written description rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 6, 7, 13,
14, 26, 28 to 31, 34, 35 and 41 to 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.
The written description requirement serves "to ensure
that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the
application relied on, of the specific subject matter later
claimed by him; how the specification accomplishes this is not
2Breadth 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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007