Appeal No. 2000-2115
Application No. 08/633,564
Turning to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we note that the
examiner's first concern (answer, page 4) is that the
specification does not define any value for the relative terms
"high" and "low" coefficient of friction. Our review of the
specification, however, reveals that these relative terms are
reasonably set forth therein as relating to a high coefficient
of friction road surface, such as a dry conventional asphalt
road surface, while the low coefficient of friction is
understood to be that which would be encountered on a
slippery, snowy road or on ice. Moreover, we fail to see the
relevance of the examiner's focus on the terms "high" and
"low" coefficient of friction in rejecting claims 1 and 2 on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, since those
particular terms do not appear in the claims on appeal. As
for the examiner's further concern (answer, page 5) about the
terminology "predetermined value," "predetermined level" and
"lower limit value," we consider that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have no problem understanding these terms and
their relevance to the claimed subject matter when such are
considered in light of appellant's specification, and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007