Appeal No. 2005-2698 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/316,636
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 11-19 as being
unpatentable over Bok in view of Souetre. For the reasons expressed below in the new
ground of rejection, these claims are indefinite. Therefore, the prior art rejection must
fall because it is necessarily based on speculative assumption as to the meaning of the
claims. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). It
should be understood, however, that our decision in this regard is based solely on the
indefiniteness of the claimed subject matter, and does not reflect on the adequacy of the
prior art evidence applied in support of the rejection.
We turn our attention now to the rejection of claims 1-10 and 20-32 as being
unpatentable over Bok in view of Souetre. Each of independent claims 1, 20 and 31 is
directed to a method comprising steps of placing a first group of stators and a first group
of rotors between a first pressure plate and a first back plate, said rotors having a
greater thickness than said stators; upon reaching a predetermined wear stroke of the
piston, inserting a first spacer to reset said wear stroke; upon reaching said wear stroke,
replacing said first group of stators with a second group of stators; upon reaching said
wear stroke, inserting a second spacer to reset said wear stroke and, upon reaching
said wear stroke, replacing said first group of rotors with a second group of rotors.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007