Appeal No. 98-0584
Application 08/238,948
namely, the language employed does not set out and
circumscribe a particular area sought to be covered with a
reasonable degree of precision and certainty when read in
light of the specification.
Most of the examiner's criticisms are based on the view
that the "structural relationships" or "structural
cooperation" of various elements is unclear. For example, on
page 3 of Paper No. 11 the examiner inquires "[w]here is the
proximity detector in relation to the rest of the apparatus?"
and questions whether "working surface" refers to the table or
insert. Such criticisms, however, all go to the breadth of
the structure set forth, and just because a claim is broad
does not mean that it
is indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17,
194 USPQ 187, 194 n.17 (CCPA 1977); In re Miller, 441 F.2d
689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427
F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970) and Ex parte
Scherberich,
201 USPQ 397, 398 (Bd. App. 1977). Apparently, the examiner
has analyzed the various recitations that have been criticized
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007