Appeal No. 2002-0847
Application 09/139,607
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We cannot sustain any of the obviousness rejections on
appeal, for the reasons given below.
Independent claim 1 sets forth an attachment to a machine
having a handle, operable to perform groundworking functions,
comprising; inter alia, a fluid actuated extendible strut with an
accumulator pivotally connected to said arm member and pivotally
connectable to a handle when an arm member is connected to the
handle.2
As we see it, the claim recitation of an extendible strut
“with” an accumulator pivotally connected to an arm member and
pivotally connectable to a handle is fairly well understood to
denote that the strut and accumulator are pivotally connected to
2 A reading of claim 1, in light of the underlying
disclosure, reveals to us that language in the claim is
indefinite in meaning and appears to lack descriptive support in
the original specification. We address the above matters in a
remand to the examiner below. Notwithstanding the above, we do
understand claim 1 to the extent that we are able to assess the
applied prior art relative thereto in the obviousness rejections
on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007