Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
of said control pads" as recited in claim 1; and (3) "said
control pads do not project beyond said gripping surface" as
recited in claims 1 and 23.
The appellant's argument (brief, pp. 23-25) regarding item
(1) is not convincing. The appellant is correct that the
original specification (p. 4) states that the cavities 30 may be
of any conventional shape: rectangular, round, oval, etc. and
that those various shapes are shown in the drawings. However,
our review of the originally filed disclosure fails to find any
support for the predetermined shapes identifying corresponding
control means. That is, the originally filed disclosure would
not have reasonably conveyed to an artisan that the shape of the
recess identified the device being controlled by the control pad.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 22, and its
dependent claim 24, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
For the reasons set forth in the appellant's brief (pp. 10-
23), it is our opinion that items (2) and (3) above are supported
by the originally filed disclosure. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 12 to 15, 21, 23, 25 to
29 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007