Appeal No. 1998-1533 Page 12
Application No. 08/411,202
The examiner (answer, p. 4) responded to this argument by
noting that the use of the term "substantially 1/12" in claim
1 results in "broad limits, both below and above 1/12" since
"substantially" is considered a broad term.
The appellants responded (reply brief, pp. 2-3) to this
position of the examiner by stating that there is "no basis
for expanding the meaning of substantially one twelfth to
broad limits above and below 1/12" and that the term
"substantially is used in recognition of the inexactitude of
manufacturing, not to impart broad upper and lower limits on
the total width."
We agree with the examiner that the only difference
between claim 1 and Tarter is the limitation that the total
width of the friction pad member is less than substantially
1/12 of the circumferential length of the disc rotor at a
position where the rotor is brought into frictional engagement
with the upper portion of the friction pad member. However,
we agree with the appellants' position set forth in the brief
that the combined teachings of Tarter and Feldmann would not
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007