Appeal No. 1999-1169
Application No. 08/442,441
would not normally be considered as being “substantially the
same.” That the claim limitations at issue are nonetheless
intended to cover this width relationship is evidenced by
claims 20 and 54 which depend from claims 56 and 57,
respectively, and are specifically drawn to the embodiment
shown in Figures 9 and 11.
Thus, the meaning to be attributed to the limitations in
claims 56 and 57 requiring the widths of the rim surface and
the abrasive pieces to be “substantially the same” is unclear.
It
follows that claims 56 and 57, and claims 2 through 21 and 36
through 55 which depend therefrom, fail to set forth the metes
and bounds of the appellants’ invention with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 through
21 and 36 through 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed; and
a new 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of these
claims is entered pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007