Appeal No. 2005-2698 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/316,636
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which appellants
regard as the invention.
Unlike claims 1-10 and 20-31 which are directed to a method of arranging carbon
brake disks, claims 11-19 are directed to an "arrangement of carbon brake discs[ ]1."
The claims are misdescriptive of the appellants' disclosed invention because they
require an arrangement having the four recited configurations and there is no single
disclosed arrangement of the rotors and stators that comprises all four of the recited
configurations. It is not clear how an arrangement can have four different
configurations.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED. A new rejection of claims 11-19 is entered.
1 We note that appellants have used two different spellings "disk" and "disc" in this application.
While this certainly does not render the claims indefinite, appellants should consider making any
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007