Appeal No. 97-3110
Application 08/437,956
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kohira in view of
Robertshaw and Washizu. Appealed claims 1 through 21
additionally stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
appellant regards as his invention.
With regard to the rejection of the appealed claims
under the second paragraph of § 112, the examiner’s difficulty
with the claim language centers on the recitation in claim 1
that the link arms are directly attached to the fuel tank and
on the recitation in claim 18 that the link arms are directly
pivotably mounted to the fuel tank. With respect to this
language, the examiner states:
With regard to Issue I, both claims 1
and 18 positively recite ?suspension arms?
(claim 1) and ?link arms? (claim 18) being
?directly attached to the fuel tank?,
however, it is plain to see that this is
not the case. For example, referring to
figure [sic, figures] 1 and 4, it can be
seen that the ?link arms? 5-9 are directly
attached to respective arm brackets (12)
which are in turn connected to the fuel
tank (1), this arrangement making it
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007