Appeal No. 96-3744 Page 11
Application No. 08/173,764
Claims 1 through 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as the specification, as originally filed,
does not provide support for the invention as is now claimed.
In claim 1, the "fail-safe means operatively arranged . . . to
cause said platform to move automatically toward a
predetermined position relative to said base in the event of
any unsafe and uncontrolled condition in said actuation
mechanism resulting in
. . . exceeding a predetermined velocity" is not supported by
the original disclosure. In claim 16, the step of "causing
said platform to move automatically toward a predetermined
position relative to said base, . . ., whenever said
servoactuators . . . exceed a predetermined velocity" is not
supported by the original disclosure.
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the
later claimed subject matter, rather than the presence or
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007