Appeal No. 2005-0996 Page 2
Application No. 09/848,583
drive mechanism for driving the lifting device. A copy of the claims under appeal is set
forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner has not rejected any of the claims in this application on the basis
of prior art.
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as
to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 13 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellants regard as their invention.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed May 18, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the brief (filed February 26, 2004) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007