Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 09/946,920
understood how the upper and lower platforms are
structurally connected in the absence of connecting
means therefore or whether they are integrally formed
and connected together. Moreover, while it is claimed
that the first object supporting surface is fixed
relative to the second object supporting surface, it is
not clear whether the first surface moves while the
second surface moves (and stays fixed relative to), or
whether the first and second surfaces are anchored or
what. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the first
and second surfaces are parallel to each other, skewed
relative to each other, perpendicular to each other or
what. Lastly, it is not clear what function is being
performed by the claimed first and second supporting
surfaces and in what structural environment they
operate. Re claims 5, 18 and 6, no structural means
has been set forth to bring about the retraction or
rotation. Re claim 11, it is not understood where
structurally the first surface receives the first
object and where the second surface delivers the second
object [answer, pages 3 and 4].
None of these concerns is well founded. The “horizontally
offset” limitations in independent claims 1, 11, 22 and 25, and
the corresponding “horizontally spaced” limitation in independent
claim 16, are clear on their face as well as when read, as they
are required to be, in light of the detailed explanation and
depiction thereof on page 10 in the specification and Figure 3 of
the drawings (see horizontal offset distance D2). In addition,
the appellants’ amendment of claims 5, 6 and 18 subsequent to
final rejection to recite “means” for retracting and/or rotating
obviates any purported ambiguity due to a lack of structure in
these claims. The rest of the examiner’s criticisms relate to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007