Appeal No. 97-4214
Application 08/603,348
whether Rosander meets the limitation in claim 11 requiring
“scaffold supporting means for removably and entirely
supporting conventionally available scaffold means thereon.”
This limitation is written in means plus function format and
thus is to be construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph, as covering the corresponding structure
described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The examiner submits that Rosander’s scaffold-steadying
bracket, scaffold-engaging bolster and platform meet the
limitation at issue because they are “capable of entirely
supporting a scaffold which has a relatively small cross-
section” (answer, page 3).
In essence, the appellant contends that
Rosander discloses an entirely different
structure. Rosander does not support scaffolding on
his motorized vehicle 10, nor does he provide any
means for doing so, and in addition his vehicle 10
is obviously too small to do so and he provides no
such suggestion anywhere in his disclosure that this
even could or should be done. To the contrary, he
has to provide a complex multiple connected
structure to connect his vehicle 10 to the scaffold
in order to drag the wheeled scaffold structure
along with the motorized vehicle 10 [brief, page 6].
The appellant is correct to the extent that the Rosander
reference does not expressly disclose (or suggest) that the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007