Appeal No. 2000-0477
Application No. 08/834,410
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Masters.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Masters in view of Drummond.
Finally, claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Drummond in view of Masters.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
We cannot sustain any of these rejections.
Concerning the Section 112, second paragraph, rejection, the
examiner has incorrectly determined that the claim 7 phrase “a
laser” renders this claim (as well as claim 8 which depends
therefrom) indefinite as to whether the recited laser is the same
as or different from the laser recited in parent claim 6. From
our perspective, claim 7 is properly interpreted as encompassing
either of these embodiments. Therefore, the claim is merely
broad, and it is well settled that breadth is not indefiniteness.
In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007