Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
pair of platforms (430, 432)2 in the form of buckets for
supporting workmen. The platforms are mounted on opposite
sides of the frame by support structures. The support
structures provide for the vertical and horizontal
adjustment of the platforms to allow the workmen on the
platforms to prune rows of trees on opposite sides of the
vehicle.
Independent claim 15 recites a means for moving each
platform in a “pure linear vertical direction and
perpendicular with respect to the ground” and an additional
means for moving each platform in a “pure linear horizontal
direction perpendicular to the long axis [of the frame].”
Claims 1 and 8, the only other independent claims on
appeal, contain somewhat similar limitations.3 Claim 1
recites that the platforms are located at a “mid-portion”
2 See Figures 15 and 16, which illustrate the elected
species. In view of the election of the species in Figures
15-16, we fail to find any relevancy in appellant’s
discussion about the manner in which claim 1 is readable on
the non-elected species of Figures 1-6 as set forth on
pages 12 and 13 of the main brief.
3 In the first office action (Paper No. 3 mailed October 2,
1995) the examiner indicated that claims 1-5, 7, 15 and 16
were generic. However, as a result of amendments made
subsequent to the first office action, claims 1 and 15 no
longer read on the non-elected species of Figures 1-6. In the
embodiment of Figures 1-6, the height adjustment of the
platforms is not purely vertical as evidenced by the
horizontal spacing of the platforms shown in Figure 3 of the
drawings viz-a-viz that shown in Figure 1 of the drawings.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007