Appeal No. 2000-2022
Application No. 08/888,663
9). This argument is not persuasive since it is evident,
reading the claims in the light of appellants' disclosure,
that "parallel to the ground" is used in the claims as meaning
"parallel to a horizontal ground plane." The Shaver apparatus
does not allow positioning of the carriage and post driver in
this manner. Moreover, even if the term "ground" in the
claims were interpreted as the actual surface of the ground,
the Shaver apparatus would not allow lateral and forward
positioning of the carriage and driver "parallel to the
ground" even if the ground were uneven or sloped, unless the
ground surface were a surface shaped as the combination of a
forward arc centered about Shavers's pivot point 32, and a
lateral arc centered about pivot point 28, a situation which
would seem to be so extremely unlikely to occur in practice as
to be virtually nonexistent.
Accordingly, the rejection will not be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 2 to 4 and 6 to
9 (as construed herein) under § 103(a) is reversed. Claims 2
to 4 and 6 to 9 are rejected pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007