Appeal No. 2003-1654 Page 3
Application No. 09/439,310
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 11 and 15) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
The basis of the examiner’s rejection of claim 4 as being indefinite, as explained
on page 4 of the answer, is that
dependent claim 4 does not disclose what one would expect
to gain or gather once establishment or non-establishment of
said written reports was confirmed. Consequently, the result
of such a meeting does [sic] is vague and indefinite.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958,
189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976). 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007