Appeal No. 1996-3409
Application No. 08/092,543
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. See the Examiner’s Answer, page 7. To the extent that this rejection
concerns the breadth of certain terms (“‘tumors’, ‘carcinomas’ and ’cardiovascular
diseases’ are indefinite since the specification gives no guidance as to what type of
tumors, carcinomas and cardiovascular diseases are diagnosed by the instant method”),
we are persuaded that one skilled in the art would have no difficulty in
understanding the metes and bounds of these terms; and that “[b]readth is not
indefiniteness.” In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970). To
the extent that this rejection concerns the lack of specific information in the claims (“[c]laim
1 is incomplete in that the level of conformity to establish a diagnosis of a particular
disease state is not clearly stated”), we find that the claims are not incomplete when read
in light of the specification.
The rejection of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed.
Obviousness
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected as obvious over Matson 1987 and Seltzer.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007