Ex parte CORRY - Page 5

          Appeal No. 1996-3597                                         Page 5            
          Application No. 08/050,825                                                     

          "... appellant has not defined the claims in terms that the                    
          article and its composition may be defined or determined in                    
          terms of its chemical and physical structure."                                 
               While we recognize that the variously recited limitations                 
          of the appealed claims do not circumscribe a narrowly defined                  
          mold composition or shape, such breadth does not equate with                   
          indefiniteness.  See In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ                
          138, 140 (CCPA 1970).  From our reading of appellant's                         
          specification, including the claims, and the relevant prior                    
          art, it is clear that the claimed method is reasonably                         
          definite albeit broad in encompassing a method for making a                    
          mold of a suitable composition and shape that would be useful                  
          for the suggested applications.  Accordingly, we shall not                     
          sustain the examiner*s rejection of the appealed claims under                  
          35 U.S.C.  112, second paragraph.                                             
                            Rejection under 35 U.S.C.  103                              
               In our view, the examiner has not set forth a prima facie                 
          case of obviousness of the claimed method.  Since we are in                    
          substantial agreement with appellant for the reasons set forth                 
          in the brief (pages 16-25), we will not burden the record by                   
          repeating all of the deficiencies in the examiner's rejection.                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007