Appeal 2007-1719
Application 10/655,483
language in light of the corresponding structure, material,
or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the
extent that the specification provides such disclosure.
Paragraph six does not state or even suggest that the PTO
is exempt from this mandate, and there is no legislative
history indicating that Congress intended that the PTO
should be.
Id., 29 USPQ2d 1848-49. As such, we construe the limitation at issue, i.e., “means
for supporting the divider at the cutting platform” in light of the corresponding
structure described in Appellants’ Specification to encompass the combination of
support arm 16, link 22, and U-shaped bracket 20, and equivalents thereof (See
e.g., Specification 2:29-30 and 4:29-35).
As shown clearly in Figure 3 of Greiner, the bracket 34 is connected to the
crop guide means 38 of the crop guide apparatus 22 and not to the row crop
dividers 12, 14 of the harvesting attachment 10 (Finding of Fact 6). Similarly, as
shown in Figure 4 of Greiner, the flange 30 is attached to the support posts 24 of
crop guide apparatus 22 and not to the row crop dividers 12, 14 of the harvesting
attachment 10 (Finding of Fact 7). As such, the bracket and flange arrangement of
Greiner supports the crop guide members 38 of the crop guide apparatus 22, and
the Examiner erred in finding that Greiner’s bracket and flange arrangement is the
link (claims 1 and 9) or supporting means (claim 16) that supports the crop divider
at the cutting platform, as claimed.
As such, Greiner does not teach or suggest a crop divider pivotable between
a forward operating position and a retracted transport position or supported at a
cutting platform by a link or support means. The Examiner relies on Hurlburt and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013