Appeal No. 1999-2537 Page 8
Application No. 08/619,269
With this as background, we analyze the specific
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the
examiner of the claim 22. The examiner determined (answer, p.
4) that the term "the height of protective sport goggles" is
indefinite because sport goggles are manufactured in a variety
of different heights.
We agree with the appellants (brief, pp. 3-7, and reply
brief, pp. 2-3) that claim 22 is not indefinite.
Specifically, we agree with the appellants that the mere
breadth of claim 22 does not in and of itself make claim 22
indefinite. Additionally, we believe that claim 22 when read2
in light of the second full paragraph of page 9 of the
specification defines the metes and bounds of the claimed
invention with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. In that regard, it is our view that broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification3
2Breadth of a claim is not to be equated with
indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597
(CCPA 1971).
3 See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007