Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
tractor frame, the attributes of an even distribution of
weight between the front wheels and the rear wheels of a
motor vehicle are well known in the motor vehicle art to
suggest the desirability of connecting the platforms to the
mid-section of the tractor’s frame.
In the paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14 of the main
brief, appellant argues that his adjustment slides 106 are
“equally displaced, balancing out any destabilizing torque”
and further that the mid-portion of the frame is “lowered,
improving stability.”6 However, these features are not
recited in claims 1 and 15. These structures, therefore,
may not be relied on to support the patentability of claims
1 and 15 over the applied references. See In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1350-1351, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982) and In re
Richards, 187 F.2d 643, 645, 89 USPQ 64, 66 (CCPA 1951).
With regard to the argument in the latter part of the
paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14 of the main brief,
claims 1 and 15 are not drafted in such a way to eliminate
“rotary motion” of the platforms. With regard to
appellant’s argument about claim 15 in the first full
paragraph on page 15 of the main brief, the recitation in
the preamble of claim 15 is a statement of intended use and
6 Similar arguments are made on page 15 of the main brief.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007