Appeal No. 1998-0607 Page 6
Application No. 08/506,857
U.S.C. § 112. Moreover, we perceive nothing in this limitation of the claim which is
inconsistent with the appellants' underlying disclosure, as the examiner's rejection suggests.
While the only specific embodiment disclosed in the specification comprises the mirrors carried
on the windshield wiping means modules, we also note that definiteness under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 does not require that the claims be written so narrowly that they
are limited only to the illustrative structure disclosed in the appellants' specification. Just
because a claim is broad does not mean that it is indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008,
1016 n.17, 194 USPQ 187, 194 n.17 (CCPA 1977); In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169
USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140
(CCPA 1970) and Ex parte Scherberich, 201 USPQ 397, 398 (Bd. App. 1977).
For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1, or
claims 2 and 3 which depend therefrom, as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. However, as the appellants concede on page 12 of the brief that the examiner is
correct with respect to claim 4, we shall summarily sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 4,
as well as claim 5 which depends from claim 4 and thus incorporates the same deficiency.
In addition to the deficiency pointed out by the examiner, we also note that claims 4 and
5 fail to comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the following reason.
The sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 states:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step
for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007