Appeal No. 2003-1272 Page 32
Application No. 10/039,338
appellants' specification. Of course, on the other hand, appellants' express exclusion in
the specification of any protrusions other than ribs/ridges for providing traction would, it
seems to me, be one factor against considering point or circle protrusions as being
equivalents under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
For all of the above reasons, the presentation of claims reciting "traction means,"
a means-plus-function with such a broad functional recitation, for the first time after the
original filing of the application, which contained such a restrictive teaching with respect
to the structure for providing traction, does not strike me as being in compliance with the
written requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, or consistent with the spirit of
the sixth paragraph of that section. Thus, while I agree with the majority that the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as articulated by the examiner should not be
sustained, I question whether claims 18 to 22 and 25 lack written description support in
violation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
) BOARD OF PATENT
JENNIFER D. BAHR ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007