Appeal No. 2000-1474 Page 7
Application No. 08/962,902
Claim 1 reads as follows:
A non-motorized adult scooter, comprising:
a first means for providing a steerable front wheel
that is rotatable about first axis of rotation;
second means, connected with and supported by said
first means, and including a wide upper platform for
carrying substantially the entirety of both feet of a
standing rider in a variety of positions and locations,
and a lower portion having a generally smooth and
snag-free face extending opposite from said upper
platform for omni-directional sliding engagement with the
ground and ground-supported object [sic], said generally
smooth and snag-free face extending longitudinally with
said upper platform to an upwardly sloping surface
adjacent said front wheel, and
third means connected with and supporting said
second means and carrying a rear wheel rotatable about a
second axis of rotation.
The first issue raised by the appellant is whether or not
the second clause (i.e., the second means . . .) of claim 1
invokes the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
As explained in In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29
USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the PTO is not exempt
from following the statutory mandate of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
paragraph 6, which reads:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed
as a means or step for performing a specified function
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007