Appeal No. 98-1419
Application 08/437,543
are distinct.
In the present case, the examiner considers independent claim 1 to be indefinite in that the
"means for retaining" recited in the last paragraph of the claim
certainly is not the disclosed means (bracket 50) as clearly evidenced by Figures 4-5.
Further, how is it that the ladder assembly can have mounting means to move the
bottom end toward and away from the first ladder (lines 13-16) while simultaneously
having retaining means to keep the bottom end horizontally adjacent the ladder? These
two limitations appear to be contradictory of one another. (Answer, pages 4 and 5).
We do not consider the examiner's position to be well taken. Appellant clearly discloses on page 2,
line 25 to page 3, line 3, and page 8, line 24, to page 9, line 28, what the retaining means comprises.
Reading claim 1 in light of this disclosure, as Miles Laboratories and In re Merat, supra, indicate that it
must be, one of ordinary skill would readily understand the scope of the "means for retaining" language
recited therein.
The examiner further considers independent claim 18 to lack compliance with § 112, second
paragraph, because (answer, page 5, original emphasis):
the claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of
elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural
connections. MPEP § 2173.05(1) . Specifically, on line 9, it is unclear to what said2
second ladder is mounted to, and thus there is no structural cooperative relationship
between the first and second ladders. Note that the Applicant has set forth that the
second ladder is "mounted for sliding movement with respect to said first ladder, and
for pivotal movement with respect to said first ladder", but has not specifically set forth
to what said second ladder is mounted, and thus has omitted the essential structural
2This section has been deleted from the current (July 1998) edition of the MPEP.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007