Appeal No. 2003-1336 Page 4
Application No. 09/642,398
On pages 3 and 4 of the Answer, the examiner has pointed out nine phrases in
the claims which are considered to be indefinite for the reasons set forth therein. The
appellants have argued that these phrases can be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art when considered in view of the specification, and have provided a detailed
explanation in support of this conclusion for each of the phrases. We agree with the
appellants’ conclusions and with their reasoning on this issue. Several of the phrases
found by the examiner to be indefinite have to do with the patterns of holes in the
blocks and paths defined by the holes in the blocks. Others refer to relationships
between the blocks and a workpiece when interposed between the clamp and the
workpiece, and between the paths and features of the workpiece when so arranged.
From our perspective, however, what is meant by each of the disputed phrases would
be determinable by one of ordinary skill in the art from a review of the specification and
drawings. The examiner seems to be suggesting that the disputed language is too
broad, and therefore is indefinite. However, just because a claim is broad does not
mean that it is indefinite. See for example, In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ
597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
The rejection under Section 112, second paragraph, is not sustained.
The Examiner’s Rejection Under Section 102
Claims 18-30 stand rejected as being anticipated by Hennessey. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007