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