Appeal No. 1999-0285 Page 6
Application No. 08/697,573
precise as the examiner might desire. If the scope of the
invention sought to be patented can be determined from the
language of the claims with a reasonable degree of certainty,
a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is inappropriate.
With this as background, we turn to the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the examiner of the
claims on appeal. Specifically, the examiner stated (answer,
p. 3) that in claim 41
it is not understood whether the predetermined safety
switch height is the same in line 16, in line 19 [,] in
line 22 and in line 25; also, in line 18, it is not clear
where the stabilizing arm is structurally located re the
lift arm.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-6) that those skilled
in the art "can easily understand the scope of Claim 41 in
light of Applicants' specification" and accordingly claim 41
"satisfies the requirements of Section 112, second paragraph."
Specifically, the appellants assert that those skilled in the
art would understand that claim 41 is reciting either the lift
arm limit switch or the stabilizing arm limit switch. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007