Appeal No. 1998-0210
Application No. 08/149,193
The definiteness inquiry focuses on whether
those skilled in the art would understand
the scope of the claim when the claim is
read in light of the rest of the
specification.
See Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.,
236 F.3d 684, 692, 57 USPQ2d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The examiner considers the phrase “said flange
distributing weight . . . against said turf” in independent
claims 113, 123, 134, and 138 to be functional, vague, and
indefinite in that it is not clear what structural limitations
are encompassed by such language. Further, from the
examiner’s standpoint, the wherein phrases “said cleat
provides . . . walked on” (claim 113), “distribute weight . .
.” (claim 119 and 132), “said cleat
provides . . . golf turf” (claim 123), “said ribs are so
dimensioned to provide traction against . . . golf turf”
(claim 134), and “said protrusions provide . . . golf turf”
(claim 138) are functional, indefinite, and incomplete because
the language is not supported by the recitation of sufficient
claimed structure.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007