Appeal No. 1997-0782
Application 08/158,029
Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971). It
is perfectly permissible for appellant to claim his invention
in terms as broad as his application disclosure will support.
Many of those problems set forth in the answer with
respect to certain identified claims appear to have been
obviated by
the examiner's subsequent entry of the amendment after final
rejection, yet the supplemental examiner's answer fails to
withdraw the rejection as to any of the claims 1 to 15. Many
of the examiner's reasons set forth in the examiner's answer
are not clearly understood, at least from an artisan's
perspective, when viewing the claimed invention in light of
the specification as the above noted precedent requires. The
terminology in the claims has been defined in the
specification, and since the claims are consistent with the
specification, it can hardly be said that the claims are
therefore indefinite. To the extent the examiner's real
problem is the breadth of the language of certain features of
the claims, it has already been noted that breadth is not
equal to indefiniteness. In any event, many of the problems
of the claims outlined by the examiner have been correlated in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007