Appeal No. 1997-4441
Application 08/370,095
are broad, not indefinite. The rejection of apparatus
claims 1, 3-6, and 11 is reversed.
Appellant argues that method claims 7 and 9 are
definite because "products are acted upon (weighed) in the
claimed method" (Br10). We agree that the method claims are
definite because "providing said weigh pan with a length in
said direction of movement not substantially greater than a
length of said products as measured in said direction of
movement" (claim 7) states a definite relationship between the
lengths of the product and the weigh pan. Because the method
acts on the product, the length limitation is not just a
statement of intended use and it is necessary to show the
claimed relationship between the lengths. See In re Mills,
916 F.2d 680, 682, 16 USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
("While Mathis' apparatus may be capable of being modified to
run the way Mills' apparatus is claimed, there must be a
suggestion or motivation in the reference to do so."). We
conclude that the method claims are definite. The rejection
of claims 7 and 9 is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007