Appeal No. 2003-2034
Application No. 09/667,727
No. 9 and page 3, Paper No. 13). We disagree for the following
reasons.
In light of the underlying specification and drawings, it is
quite apparent to this panel of the Board that one skilled in the
art at issue would readily comprehend that the linear actuators 7
are oriented in an erect (upstanding) posture in the apparatus,
as visually discernible in Figs. 1 through 3. Akin to
appellants' point of view (main brief, pages 5 through 7 and
reply brief, pages 1 and 2)), we are of the opinion that the term
"in an erected posture", in the context of the claim, clearly
means or denotes that the pair of linear actuators are upstanding
in orientation, as opposed to being horizontally positioned, for
example. Thus, the phrase "in an erected posture" is an
understandable limitation which does not render claim 3
indefinite.
The obviousness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Honda in view of Koyama.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007