Appeal No. 97-2888
Application 08/389,077
also recites a plurality of pivoting legs pivotally attached
to first and second frame members. Our difficulty with these
claim limitations is that claim 1 recites the cantilevering
means as if it were separate from the claimed pivoting legs
146, 148, 150 and 152. Yet, it is the pivoting legs 146, 148,
150 and 152 that perform
the function of cantilevering at least a portion of the
surgical frame off the end of an operating table.
Thus, it is not clear to us how the cantilevering means
and the pivoting legs can be read on the disclosed invention
without reading the cantilevering means and the pivoting legs
on the same elements or parts. Since the specification states
that it is the pivoting legs that allow the surgical frame to
be cantilevered off one end of the operating table, it appears
that appellant has claimed the same elements twice. Thus,
claim 1 and its dependent claim 17 are rendered indefinite by
the double inclusion of the same elements. See Ex parte
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007