Appeal No. 1998-1711 Page 6
Application No. 08/506,387
we see it, the further limitation "wherein one of said modules includes at least one further liquid
reservoir" requires one of the plurality of modules, whether it be the module which constitutes
a windshield washing liquid reservoir, the windshield wiping means carrying module or yet
another distinct module adapted for assembly together with the first two modules, to include a5
further liquid reservoir. From our viewpoint, while the recitation of the further liquid reservoir
is broad, in that it encompasses the reservoir being part of the windshield washing liquid
reservoir module or the wiping means module or a third module, the metes and bounds of the
claim are sufficiently well defined to satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112. While we acknowledge that none of the embodiments specifically described and
illustrated in the appellants' specification and drawings shows the windshield wiping means
module carrying or including a liquid reservoir, we agree with the appellants 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).
5In light of the appellants' specification, we interpret "adapted for assembly together" as used in the claims
as adapted for juxtaposition with one another.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007