Appeal No. 2004-0312
Application No. 09/277,534
The examiner also considers the appealed claims to be
indefinite because structural cooperation is allegedly lacking
for certain claimed features. However, a claim is not
necessarily indefinite merely because the claim does not recite
the structural cooperation of claimed features or elements. See
generally, In re Gustafson, 331 F.2d 905, 141 USPQ 585 (CCPA
1964). The lack of such recitation simply causes a claim to be
broad, not indefinite, as properly explained by the appellant.
In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970).
For the above stated reasons, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s § 112 second paragraph rejection of claims 1-3, 5,
7-12, 14 and 15.
We will sustain, however, the examiner’s § 102 rejection of
claim 14 as being anticipated by Perobelli. As reflected by his
comments on page 3 of the reply brief, the appellant, in essence,
concedes that claim 14 is directed to the sub-combination of “a
workpiece feeding table” and “at least one vacuum chuck”. We
share the examiner’s finding that the Perobelli apparatus
includes elements which correspond to this sub-combination in
terms of both structure and function. In particular, the
examiner has identified patentee’s stand 9 as corresponding to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007