Appeal No. 1998-2817
Application No. 08/455,366
matter which the appellants regard as the invention. In this
regard, we note, as did the appellants, that breadth 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).
Additionally, we see no basis for the examiner to conclude
that the claims are incomplete for omitting essential
structural cooperative relationships of elements. MPEP §
706.03(f) cited by the examiner to support his position no
longer exists. However, the second paragraph of MPEP §
2172.01 does state that
. . . a claim which fails to interrelate essential
elements of the invention as defined by applicant(s) in
the specification may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph, for failure to point out and distinctly
claim the invention. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003,
158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968).
Nevertheless, the examiner has failed to cite any passage
of the specification or in other statements of record that
would establish that any essential element or
interrelationship between essential elements has been omitted
from the claims under appeal. While the claims are certainly
broader without a recitation of
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007