Appeal No. 1998-0210
Application No. 08/149,193
We fully appreciate the examiner’s point of view as to
each of the asserted instances of indefiniteness focused upon.
However, while it is true that the language at issue is
functional, it is understandable in the context used in the
claim, when read in light of the underlying specification. It
is important to recognize that there is nothing wrong in
defining something by what it does rather than by what it is.
See In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215, 210 USPQ 609, 611 (CCPA
1981). For these reasons, the language at issue is found to
be definite within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
The third rejection
We reverse the rejection of claim 134 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Jordan, Sr.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007