Appeal No. 1998-3207 Page 8
Application No. 08/518,874
appellants disclose (specification, p. 11) that a conventional
pump 32 effects a slight pressurization in liquid reservoir
24a for injection molding small cells. With regard to the
other phrases found objectable by the examiner we simply do
not agree with the examiner. In that regard, we note that the
mere breadth of a claim does not in and of itself make a claim
indefinite.2
The anticipation rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bird, Timson, Pasch
or Wieser.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
2Breadth 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007