Appeal No. 2002-1385
Application No. 09/049,861
OPINION
Although appellants appear to submit that each claim is separately patentable
(Brief at 4), we will select representative claims in accordance with the separate
arguments presented. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
At the outset, we note our agreement with appellants to the extent that the instant
rejections are based on a claim interpretation (e.g., Final Rejection at 3) whereby the
instant claims may be met by a landing zone comprised of bumps and areas between
the bumps. With respect to instant claim 5, the applicable definition of a “zone” is “a
region or area set off as distinct from surrounding or adjoining parts.” Webster’s Ninth
New Collegiate Dictionary at 1372 (1990). Instant claim 9 recites “a textured area and
an untextured area” which, in our view, clearly sets forth two distinct, exclusive, non-
overlapping areas. We agree that three of the four references -- Ishihara, Matsumura,
and Sato -- fail to meet the requirements of independent claims 5 and 9 at least
because each discloses a landing zone having no more than a single, circumferential
textured area.
Samoto, however, discloses a landing zone comprised of distinct textured and
untextured areas. We sustain the section 102 rejection of independent claims 5 and 9
over Samoto for the reasons that follow.
Appellants contend that Samoto “teaches the use of concentric or spiral groove
[sic] in the landing zone.” (Brief at 5.) Appellants further argue that Samoto does not
teach a “texture free zone” in conjunction with a “landing position control unit” for
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007