Appeal No. 1999-0285 Page 7
Application No. 08/697,573
appellants further assert that the structural location of the
stabilizing arm with respect to the lift arm is not an
essential limitation.
In response to this argument of the appellants, the
examiner stated (answer, p. 4) that the argument "is not well-
taken since the claimed subject matter, not the specification
is the measure of the invention."
We agree with the appellants that the scope of claim 41
would be understood by those skilled in that art. In that
regard, we note that (1) the examiner has not provided any
explanation as to why the failure of claim 41 to structurally
locate the stabilizing arm relative to the lift arm is
necessary to understand the scope of claim 41; and (2) those 2
skilled in the art would understand that claim 41 is reciting
"monitoring the raising the basket step" with either a lift
arm limit switch or a stabilizing arm limit switch, and
2We note that breadth of a claim is not to be equated
with indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689,, 169
USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007