Appeal No. 2003-0117
Application 09/747,077
Like appellant, we are at a loss to understand this aspect
of the indefiniteness rejection as it applies to claims 11, 18
through 21, 24 and 25, since none of these claims include the
particular language or phrase found to be offending by the
examiner. The examiner’s further comment on page 6 of the answer
that some of the claims contain “phrases which include a
comparable limitation, i.e. ‘relatively greater percentage’ which
is more confusing, vague and indefinite . . .,” if intended to
apply to claims 11, 18 through 21, 24 and 25, is entirely without
merit, since we find no such “comparable limitation” in those
claims and the examiner has pointed to none.
As for the examiner’s concern about the language “a
relatively greater percentage of . . . coefficient of friction
regions” present in some of the claims on appeal (i.e, claims 8,
9, 12, 17, 22, 23, 26 and 27), we share appellant’s view as set
forth on pages 25-28 of the brief, that one of ordinary skill in
the art reading the limitations in question in light of
appellant’s specification would readily understand those
limitations and their import with regard to the claimed subject
matter as a whole. In determining whether a claim sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007