Appeal No. 2001-0181
Application No. 09/195,999
The indefiniteness rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 10
through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite.
As set forth in the answer (page 3), the examiner is of
the view that the phrase "semi-rigid intermediate zone" in
claim 1 is vague and indefinite.2
When we assess the language "semi-rigid intermediate
zone" in the context used in claim 1, and in light of the
underlying specification, it does not appear to us that the
recitation at issue is vague and indefinite, as now explained.
As claimed, the "semi-rigid intermediate zone" is understood
to be a portion of the intermediate sole that is intermediate
the rigid extremities. This is consistent with the
2The examiner acknowledges that the phrase "intermediate
flexible zone" was a typographical error in the final
rejection. Notwithstanding this error, we can fairly assess
the indefiniteness rejection, taking into account the argument
advanced in the brief (pages 4 and 5) relative to the language
of claim 1 concerning the intermediate zone.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007