Appeal No. 2001-1074 Page 7
Application No. 08/989,056
not in and of itself make a claim indefinite. Thus, we find 1
ourselves in agreement with the position of the appellant
(brief, p. 4) that the claims under appeal are definite, as
required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, since
they define the metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal reads as
follows:
A multi-purpose oxygen face mask comprising:
a mask body;
1Breadth 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