Appeal No. 2000-1349
Application No. 08/475,026
offset axes lying in offset vertical planes perpendicularly
intersecting the long axis of the frame.
With regard to the new ground of rejection of claim
17, our difficulty with the language in this claim centers
on the recitation that the platform motion is restricted to
“common planes substantially perpendicular to said long
axis and on opposite sides of said long axis, . . .” In the
first place, the expression “common planes” (in the plural)
is unclear. It is not understood how separate imaginary
planes (which by definition are dimensionless) can be
regarded as being “common.” Customarily, when the word
“common” is used as a modifier, the word “plane” is used in
the singular. Furthermore, it is not understood how planes
can be “common” and yet lie on opposite sides of the long
axis of the frame.
Finally, it is not clear how claim 17 is readable on
the elected embodiment of Figures 15 and 16. Reference is
made to our foregoing discussion of the elected embodiment
with regard to the new ground of rejection of claim 5 under
the second paragraph of § 112.
With regard to the new ground of rejection of claim 19
under the first paragraph of § 112, there is no descriptive
support in the original specification, including the
19
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007