Appeal No. 1998-1661
Application No. 08/409,244
such requirement and we agree with appellants that functional
language may be employed in a claim without limitation to
“means-plus-function.” If the functional language serves to
further define what a particular structure does and the
language is not indefinite or ambiguous in any way, we find
nothing wrong, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, with the use of such functional language.
The examiner next contends that lines 3-4 of claim 1
recite a beam “with tailored beam properties” but that it is
not clear how such a beam is produced, making the claim
indefinite and incomplete. The claim need not recite all of
the particulars as to how such a beam is produced. As long as
there is enabling support within the specification for the
recitation of such a beam , we find no problem with the cited1
claim language. While the mere recitation of a “beam with
tailored beam properties” may be broadly claimed, breadth does
not equate to indefiniteness.
1The examiner appears to have no problem with support or
enablement, within 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1, regarding a
“beam with tailored beam properties.”
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007