Appeal No. 2000-0909
Application No. 08/784,752
Such phrases fail to particularly point out and
distinctly claim those possibilities.
[3] Such phrases as "capable of moving" and "not
being pressed" merely describe the potential
capabilities of the claimed limitations rather than
actual structural interactions.
[4] Claim 27, line 5 and claim 33, line 4: the
"allows relative movement. . ." limitation renders
the claim vague and indefinite. What is being
allowed relative movement?
[5] Claim 27 recites the limitation "the repetitive
presses" in line 6. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
[6] Claims 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting
essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap
between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The
omitted elements are: the sensor targets (62).
Without this element, it is impossible for the
second sensor to provide a second signal related to
the repetitive instances of the at least one contact
area urging.
[7] Claims 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting
essential structural cooperative relationships of
elements, such omission amounting to a gap between
the necessary structural connections. See MPEP §
2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative
relationships are: a transfer station, a first
mechanism, a second mechanism, a first sensor, a
second sensor, a carrier handling assembly, a
carrier control mechanism, an electronic control
system, a microprocessor, and one arm.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007