Appeal No. 96-3744 Page 12
Application No. 08/173,764
absence of literal support in the specification for the claim
language. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re
Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
In applying the above-noted test, we conclude that the
language at issue (i.e., "exceeding a predetermined velocity"
in claim 1 and "exceed a predetermined velocity" in claim 16)
is not supported by the original disclosure. The language at
issue was added to claims 1 and 16 by the amendment filed on
January 9, 1995 (Paper No. 3). On page 5 of that amendment,
the appellants stated that the language added is fully
supported by the original disclosure and does not constitute
"new matter." The appellants directed attention to page 6,
lines 32 et seq. for support of the language at issue. Page
6, lines 32 et seq. provide that the electrodynamic braking,
which is introduced by the fail-safe system, will limit the
actuator velocity. In our view, this does not provide support
for causing the platform to move automatically toward a
predetermined position relative to the base whenever the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007