Appeal No. 2002-0894
Application No. 09/283,650
height, do not indicate that the claims are indefinite in scope,
but only that they are broad. However, this is not a proper
basis for rejecting claims under § 112, second paragraph, because
the breadth of a claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness.
In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
We likewise will not sustain the rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In rejecting the appealed claims as being unpatentable over
Neyland, the examiner makes findings with respect to the load
material ejector system of Neyland and then concludes that:
As a result of the downward direction vector created by
the extension of the hydraulic cylinder [60] at point
61 on the ejector and the manufacturing clearances
created by the rollers [40, 41] in the guides [33, 34],
the fulcrum created by the lower rollers on the ejector
[42] and the greater compaction of the material near
the floor of the body, it is obvious that the ejector
is tilted forwardly in the direction of its movement in
the claimed manner. [Answer, pages 3-4, reference
numerals added.]
At the outset, we observe that the examiner has not
specifically pointed out any difference between Neyland and the
claimed subject matter. In this regard, the examiner’s use of
the word “obvious” in the explanation supra of the rejection
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007