Appeal No. 2004-0077 Page 3
Application No. 09/674,681
the extended position” (emphasis added). The appellant now requests that we make it
clear that the claims are not limited to the disclosed examples, inasmuch as they
require only that the attachments of the gear leg mounting members be “configured to
allow retraction movement of the leg to occur about an angularly variable pivot axis”
(emphasis added).
We agree with the appellant that the claims do not require that in the retracted
position the orientation of the gear pivot axis not be parallel with the orientation when
the gear is in the extended position. It was not our intention to interpret the phrase in
issue in such a manner as to limit the claims to the showing in the preferred
embodiment disclosed in the specification, but only to make reference to that showing
to explain why this limitation was not present in Lucien. From our perspective, the
appellant’s claims require only that the angle of the pivot axis vary during the retraction
movement, with no requirement as to the orientation of the axis when the gear is in the
extended position.
The appellant’s request for rehearing is granted to the extent set forth above
REQUEST FOR REHEARING GRANTED
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007