Appeal No. 1999-1758
Application No. 08/787,971
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Appellant sets forth (brief, page 4) that the claim
language that defines the adaptor as “configured to releasably
engage and grip at least two adjacent or two opposing surfaces
of a jaw of a beam clamp," which was added to claim 1, lines
3-4 in Paper
No. 7, finds support on page 6, lines 16-20 and is shown in
Figures 1 and 7 of the application which show how the adaptors
engage both adjacent and opposing surfaces of jaws of a beam
clamp. In the office action subsequent to Paper No. 7, the
examiner’s response, Paper No. 11, page 4, lines 8-11, was
that “such language is not herein found . . . or defined in
the descriptive portion of the specification.” Appellant
further argues in the Brief, pages 4-7, that if the adaptor is
configured to "engage and grip a vertical flange portion 30 of
jaws 14 and 16" (as set forth at page 6, lines 16-20 of the
original specification), the adaptor must necessarily "engage
and grip at least two adjacent or opposing surfaces of a jaw
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007