Appeal No. 1999-0279 Page 6
Application No. 08/926,986
a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is inappropriate.
Furthermore, the appellants may use functional language,
alternative expressions, negative limitations, or any style of
expression or format of claim which makes clear the boundaries
of the subject matter for which protection is sought. As
noted by the Court in In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 160 USPQ
226 (CCPA 1971), a claim may not be rejected solely because of
the type of language used to define the subject matter for
which patent protection is sought.
With this as background, we analyze the specific
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by
the examiner of the claims on appeal. The examiner determined
(answer, pp. 4-5) that two phases recited in claim 5 were
indefinite, namely
(1) taking into account a lateral inclination of the road
surface, and (2) a ply-steer residual cornering force of tires
on the road surface.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007