Appeal No. 1999-0220 Page 13
Application No. 08/540,323
permitted references to unclaimed elements. Thus, the
appellant states that the second cylinder/ram is not claimed.
Our review of the claims under appeal leads us to the
conclusion that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is appropriate, since the claims are indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellants regard as the invention.
Our analysis of claim 1 leads us to the following
determinations:
(1) in the first paragraph, the main cylinder and a second
cylinder of a hydraulic elevator are recited utilizing
intended use language; (2) in the second paragraph, the second
cylinder is referred to without utilizing intended use
language (i.e., use of the phrase "is smaller than" rather
than "is intended to be smaller than"); and (3) in the third
paragraph, the second cylinder is referred to without
utilizing intended use language (i.e., use of the phrase "are
rotated" rather than "are capable of being rotated away" and
the use of the term "press" rather than "are capable of
pressing"). From our review of claim 1 as a whole, it is
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007