Appeal No. 96-1419
Application 08/081,971
In appealed claim 4, the recitation of “fasteners deployed
within the slots of the base member” is interpreted to refer to
the slots in the claimed first and second members inasmuch as
there is no recitation that the base member has any slots.
In appealed claim 12, the inaccurate recitation in the
preamble that the mounting assembly is “for mounting at least one
mirror on a support rod” is interpreted to mean that the mounting
assembly is for mounting a support rod carrying at least one
mirror. In clause (a) of claim 12 the recitation of the support
rod “being received into the bore” as if the rod were a part of
the claimed mounting assembly is interpreted to mean that the
bore is adapted to receive the support rod. In clause (b) of
claim 12, the recitation of “the wing window,” which lacks strict
antecedent basis, is interpreted to refer back to the recitation
of the “wing window opening” in the preamble of the claim.
In appealed claim 8, the recitation of “the support” in
clause (c ) (1) (iii) lacks strict antecedent basis and is
interpreted to read on the support rod recited in clause (b). In
addition, each occurrence of the phrase “accurate surface” in
clause (1) was evidently intended to refer to an arcuate surface.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007