Appeal No. 2000-0504
Application 08/799,898
A detailed explanation of these actions follows.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1 through 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we are not in
agreement with the examiner that the metes and bounds of the
invention cannot be determined with specificity. It is clear
to us that claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for
stabilizing, and the object to be
stabilized is merely recited in the body of the claim. We
agree with the appellant that the claim can clearly be
understood as directed to a subcombination.
With respect to the § 102 rejection of claims 1 through 3
as anticipated by Jones, we agree with the examiner’s finding
that Jones discloses a mounting means plate 7, bracket 4, and
arm 1 and a means for attaching, arms and clamp 2,3,10. We
further agree that the mounting means has a single axis
extending outwardly from a fixed position and that the object,
the lamp socket, is vertically mountable with respect to the
axis and the surface. 2
2Neither the appellant, nor the examiner has raised the
issue of the interpretation of the “means for” limitations in
the rejected claims. The means for mounting in claim 1 has
been construed as an arm such as arm 22/23 as disclosed in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007