Appeal No. 1999-0220 Page 12
Application No. 08/540,323
claims on appeal made by the examiner. The examiner's
rejection (answer, p. 4) states that
[t]he scope of claims 1-4, 6-12, 21, and 27-30 is
not clear. The claims appear to be directed to an
arresting device, but the claims recite structure which
is outside of the device, i.e. the external radius of
curvature of the second cylinder/ram, the detection
system, the hydraulic ram, the hydraulic lift, the
longitudinal axis of the second cylinder, etc. The
claims further define the arresting device relative to
the outside structure, i.e. the internal radius of
curvature of the braking surface being smaller than the
external radius of curvature of the second cylinder/ram,
the lever arms being within 15 degrees of being
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the second
cylinder, and the lever arms being perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the second cylinder. Therefore, it
is not clear if solely the arresting device is being
relied upon for patentability or if the combination of
the arresting device and the outside elements are being
relied upon for patentability.
The appellant argues (reply brief, pp. 3-7) that with
respect to the claims under appeal there is no indefiniteness
as to the scope of the claims. Specifically, the appellant
asserts that the claims are directed to an apparatus having as
its principal elements a pair of lever arms having semi-
cylindrical braking surfaces. The appellant also asserts that
the references to elements outside the claimed apparatus
(e.g., the second cylinder, the ram) in the claims are
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007