Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
reference to render claim 8 obvious” (main brief, pages 20-
21). These arguments are not persuasive.
In the first place, claim 8 does not recite that the
platforms are operated “in opposed linear fashion . . .”
Instead, claim 8 calls for “a multiple of two platforms8 . . .
oriented in balanced pairs in planes9 substantially
perpendicular to said long axis . . .” This structural
orientation is suggested by Cepparo. In particular, our
findings and conclusions regarding the Giladi and Cepparo
references as set forth supra with respect to the rejection
of claims 1 and 15 are applicable here with respect to the
rejection of claim 8 based on the combined teachings of
Giladi, Cepparo and Kishi. Additionally, our findings and
conclusions regarding the Kishi reference as set forth supra
with regard to the rejection of claim 4 are also applicable
here with respect to the rejection of claim 8 based on the
8 This limitation when read in light of appellant’s
specification, particularly the elected embodiment of
Figures 15 and 16, is broad enough to read on just one pair
of platforms, especially since the multiple may be the
integer “1”.
9 By definition, a “plane” is a merely dimensionless,
imaginary facet. See Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Company, 1971). Therefore, a
three dimensional object, such as each of the claimed
platforms, may lie along an imaginary plane, but not in the
plane itself. Accordingly, we have interpreted this claim
language to mean that the platforms lie along planes
substantially perpendicular to the long axis of the vehicle.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007