Appeal No. 1997-2194 Page 7 Application No. 08/195,018 smaller than 70 mN/m) "lacks a lower limit which would read on no surface tension." The examiner has not explained why the claimed language cannot be understood with a reasonable degree of certainty. In fact, the examiner was able to determine that the limitation in question was readable on no surface tension. In our opinion the metes and bounds of the claimed language can be easily understood. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere breadth of 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 1 to 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed. The written description rejection 2Breadth of a claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007