Appeal No. 97-1393
Application 08/456,349
literally, the above language of the claims on appeal is
clearly indefinite. Similarly, the recitation of a
“substantially one dimensional closed arm” in
independent claims 1 and 9, and of a “substantially one
dimensional structure” in independent claim 20 to define
appellant’s portable, foldable structure in its closed
position are also misdescriptive of appellant’s structure as
described in the remainder of the application. In this
regard, we note that the structure resulting from folding the
lower arm (13) against the upper arm (11) for transport of the
portable structure into the field does not provide “a closed
arm” (emphasis added) or any structure that can reasonably be
described as being one dimensional or even as “substantially
one dimensional.” As a further point, we also note what
appears to be a double recitation of structure in independent
claims 1 and 9 on appeal, wherein the “flange support” and
“game animal attachment means” are positively set forth twice
in the claims, once with respect to the structure in its open
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007