Appeal No. 1998-0210
Application No. 08/149,193
thickness, rib height, and cleat material, the evidence of
obviousness would not have been suggestive of the claimed
invention for the reasons articulated above. It is for this
reason that the rejection cannot be sustained.
The rejection of claims 123 through 127, and 132 is
reversed for the following procedural reasons. We cannot
ascertain the meaning of the “traction means” recitation in
claim 123, when
that means plus function language (sixth paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112) is read in light of the underlying disclosure,13
i.e., the claims are indefinite in meaning under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph. More specifically, the disclosed ribs14
are seen to be the corresponding structure described in the
13Independent claim 123 sets forth, inter alia, a
plurality of “traction means” (line 12) that “provide
traction” (line 15) against turf. We consider the “traction
means” recitation and corresponding recitation of the function
of providing traction, without the recital of any structure
for performing the function, to indicate that the “traction
means” is a means plus function recitation.
14A specification must set forth an adequate disclosure
showing what is meant by means-plus-function language in a
claim. See In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194-95, 29 USPQ2d
1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007