Appeal No. 97-1754
Application 08/462,133
whether it is patentable over the prior art since to do so
would of necessity require speculation with regard to the
metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. See In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962) and
In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA
1970). Nevertheless, in the case of claim 2, we are of the
opinion that the examiner’s § 103 rejection cannot be
sustained based on those portions of the claim that are
understandable. Specifically, appealed claim 2 at lines 28-
38 calls for2
at least one pallet feeding assembly
including a vertically extending elevator
shaft perpendicularly intersecting the
transfer station at a said storage
placement and retrieval area, said pallet
feeding assembly further including an empty
pallet staging area and a filled pallet
staging area, each of said staging areas
extending normally to the elevator shaft in
spaced vertical relation to each other . .
. . [Emphasis added.]
This arrangement is shown, for example, in appellants’ Figures
All references herein to line numbers for the appealed claims are2
with respect to the claims as they appear in the appendix to appellants’
main brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007