Appeal No. 1999-2050 Page 14
Application No. 08/576,544
Claim 8 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "the data is read and written into the same
memory location in one cycle." The examiner fails to show
that the limitations are indefinite. "Even if ... claims are
.. broader than they otherwise would be, breadth is not to be
equated with indefiniteness, as we have said many times." In
re Miller,
441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
Here, although the relationship between the claimed
electrically conducting storage and the claims contact opening
may not be recited in claims 13-40, 53-60, 66, and 67, the
omission is a matter of breadth, not of indefiniteness.
Figure 6a of the specification shows that bit b(1,1,1.)@15 is
read from a memory location; Figure 6b shows that bit b(1,2,1)
is written to the same memory location. When read in light of
the specification, one skilled in the art would understand
that data are read from and written into the same memory
location in one cycle. We demand no more. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claim 8 as indefinite.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007