Appeal No. 2005-2102
Application No. 10/077,346
Based on the totality of the record, including due
consideration of appellant’s arguments in the Brief and the
examiner’s position in the Answer, we affirm all of the rejections
on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, the
Office action dated Nov. 4, 2003, and for those reasons set forth
below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 112, ¶2
The examiner finds that the claimed terms “relatively
flexible” (claim 25) and “relatively inflexible” (claim 26) are
“vague and unclear” since the degree of flexibility is not defined
(Answer, pages 3-4).
Appellant argues that the specification was amended to state
that the various coats “may flex easily” or they “may not flex
easily,” thus allowing a person of ordinary skill in the bed liner
art to understand the terms in question (Brief, page 6, citing
¶ 0049 of the specification).
“The legal standard for definiteness [of claim language] is
whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of
its scope. [Citations omitted].” In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354,
1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The statute (§ 112,
¶2) is satisfied if a person skilled in the field of the invention
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007