Appeal No. 2001-2566 Page 5
Application No. 09/655,092
features of the roadway, the features of the wheel or the
subcombination [sic: combination] thereof” (final rejection,
page 2). We do not agree. It is apparent to us that
appellant’s claims are directed to an apparatus comprising a
combination of a roadway, a support means, a plurality of
wheels and a compression means.
The examiner’s position (answer, pages 3-4) that the
claims are vague and indefinite because appellant does not
distinctly recite in the body of the claim how the three parts
(roadway, wheels and compression means) combine together is
equally untenable. The interaction or interrelationship of
the roadway, wheels and compression means is clearly set forth
in the last two paragraphs of claims 1 and 12.
For the foregoing reasons, we shall not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1-12 under the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The obviousness rejections
Each of claims 1 and 12, the only independent claims on
appeal, requires, inter alia, a roadway having sides, a
plurality of wheels rotating about axles and a compression
means, connected to the wheels, for causing the wheels to be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007