Appeal No. 2003-0117
Application 09/747,077
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the indefiniteness and obviousness
issues raised in this appeal in light of the record before us, we
have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9,
11, 12 and 17 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite, we observe that the examiner is of the view
that claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 22 through 26 are “functional,
indefinite, and incomplete because they contain functional
language not supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient
structure to warrant the presence of such language” (answer, page
3). More particularly, the examiner contends that
it is not clear what structural limitations applicant
intends to encompass with phrases such as ‘a relatively
greater percentage of . . . coefficient of friction
regions’. Such a recitation is a comparable limitation and
it is not clear in comparison to what the percentage is
greater. There is no clear guidance as to what structural
limitations applicant intends to encompass with such a
phrase.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007