Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
"connected" requires an actual contact between the oscillator and
conductor. Whereas appellants’ disclosure does not show
oscillator 22 actually in contact with the neutral conductor N
but connected to the conductor through trans connection device
21, it is the examiner's position that claims 21 and 22 are based
on a specification which fails to comply with the enablement
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We reverse the
rejection.
The term "connected" does not require actual contact between
connected elements as asserted by the examiner. The accepted
definition of the term is restricted to neither a direct nor an
indirect connection, and it is therefore applicable to an
indirect connection. Ullstrand v. Coons, 147 F.2d 698, 700,
64 USPQ 580, 581 (CCPA 1945).
b) Claims 11, 12 and 14-16:
The examiner contends that these claims are deficient
because there are no details of a circuit in the disclosure
showing how to implement the silence distinction circuit. The
examiner's answer states at page 3 that "Claims 11-12, 14-16 and
21-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
explained in paper 10." Paper No. 10 indicates at page 2 that
claim 11 has been amended to recite a silence distinction circuit
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007