Appeal No. 2004-2042 Page 5
Application No. 10/019,269
With this as background, we analyze the specific rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, made by the examiner of the claims on appeal. The sole
basis for this rejection (answer, p. 3) is that it was unclear what the word "imperceptible"
as used in independent claims 8, 9 and 20 meant.2 We do not agree. In our view, the
scope of the word "imperceptible" as used in independent claims 8, 9 and 20 can be
determined from the language of the claims with a reasonable degree of certainty from
the teachings of the appellant's application as it would be interpreted by one possessing
the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art as set forth on pages 5-7 of the brief. The
word "imperceptible" as used in independent claims 8, 9 and 20 means that the period
of time of the actuation in the release direction is only so brief that any stresses in the
drive of the assembly will be reversed and that the static friction will change into a
sliding friction so that the reduction in force cannot be perceived (e.g., by the driver
applying the braking force).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 8 to
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
2 Claim 8 includes the recitation "said brief period of time of the actuation in the release direction
being selected to be so short that any reduction of the braking force is imperceptible." Claim 9 includes
the recitation "the period of time of the actuation in the release direction being selected to be so short that
any reduction of the force exerted is imperceptible." Claim 20 includes the recitation "said brief period of
time of the actuation in the release direction being selected to be so short that any reduction of the braking
force is imperceptible."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007