Appeal No. 2000-0523
Application 08/583,307
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted
by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent
art. Id.
The examiner considers appealed claims 1 through 17 to be
indefinite because they “are generally narrative in form and
replete with indefinite and functional or operational
language” (answer, page 3). The stated reasoning for this
determination, which indicates that the examiner’s “generally
narrative” concern stems from the so-called functional or
operational language, is that:
The following terms or phrases in claims 1-17
are not self-explanatory and are not defined in the
claims such that their physical association with the
structure of the guardrail system is understood:
effective depth, length of the edge, area of the
edge, crush strength, depth, width, length, Xbar,
Ybar, Ix, Sx, Sy1, Sy2, surface contact, C-max,
bearing area, and total bearing area.
In claim 2, the functional recitation that the
guardrail system is “tailored to ... occupant
compartment” is indefinite because it is not
supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient
structure to accomplish the function. Likewise, in
claim 8, the functional recitation that the
“occupant compartment is not intruded upon” is
indefinite because it is not supported by recitation
in the claim of sufficient structure to accomplish
the function.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007