Appeal No. 2003-0106
Application 09/502,680
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references and APA, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations which
follow.
However, before looking to the prior art rejections put
forth by the examiner, we note that it is an essential
prerequisite that the claimed subject matter be fully understood.
Accordingly, we initially direct our attention to appellants’
independent claim 28 to derive an understanding of the scope and
content thereof. Claim 28 sets forth a method of installing
replaceable, elongated plates (136, 138) on the blade (140) of a
plow or grader, said method including the steps of a) supporting
at least one plate (e.g., 136 as in Fig. 1) on a mobile cart (10)
by placing the plate on an angularly height adjustable plate
holder (e.g., 16, 20) of the cart, and b) aligning attachment
holes defined in the plate with corresponding attachment holes in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007