Appeal No. 1999-2454 Page 8
Application No. 08/656,106
disclosure. In our view, claim 1 defines the metes and3
bounds thereof with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. That is all that is required by the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d
956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, we note
that while claim 1 may be a very broad claim , breadth of a 4
claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness. See In re
Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971).
3The appellant states (reply brief, paragraph bridging
pages 1-2) that claim 1 covers four fuel injectors numbered 1,
2, 3, 4 wherein injectors 1, 2 inject simultaneously and
injectors 3, 4 inject simultaneously but sequentially to the
injection of injectors 1, 2. However, in our view, such an
operation of those injectors would not be consistent with the
claimed limitation of "each conduit being related to said fuel
injectors so that fuel is not supplied by any conduit to two
fuel injectors that inject adjacent to or simultaneous with
each other" if the fuel for all four injectors were supplied
by only two fuel supply conduits. For example, if one fuel
conduit supplied fuel to injectors 1, 2, and the other fuel
conduit supplied fuel to injectors 3, 4, then the "not
simultaneous" aspect of the above-noted limitation would not
be met. Likewise, if one fuel conduit supplied fuel to
injectors 1, 3, and the other fuel conduit supplied fuel to
injectors 2, 4, then the "not adjacent to" aspect of the
above-noted limitation would not be met.
4It appears to us that claim 1 is readable on an engine
having two fuel injectors operated in sequence where each of
the two fuel injectors has its own separate fuel supply
conduit.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007