Appeal No. 2002-1250 Page 6
Application No. 09/200,057
The examiner determined (answer, p. 4) that the phrase "the first coefficient of
friction being greater than the second coefficient of friction" as recited in independent
claims 1, 18 and 19 was indefinite since the specification fails to provide any
information which would permit one skilled in the art to understand the metes and
bounds of the claimed invention. The examiner then stated that the term "coefficient of
friction" is vague (e.g., does it refer to static coefficient of friction or kinetic coefficient of
friction).
The appellant argues (supplemental brief, p. 6) that the above-noted phrase is
clear and unambiguous. We agree. In our view, the claimed phrase "the first
coefficient of friction being greater than the second coefficient of friction" clearly means
just what it says. That is, the coefficient of friction of the friction member is greater than
the coefficient of friction of the guarding member. Furthermore, we note that the mere
breadth of a claim (e.g., whether the claimed coefficient of friction is static coefficient of
friction or kinetic coefficient of friction) does not in and of itself make a claim indefinite.3
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1,
3, 4, 6 to 9, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
3 Breadth of a claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693,
169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007