Appeal No. 95-5020
Application 08/151,041
re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA
1977), citing In re Moore, 439 F. 2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236,
238 (1971). Furthermore, our reviewing court points out that
a claim which is of such breadth that it reads on subject
matter disclosed in the prior art is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 rather than under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 715, 218
USPQ
195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904,
909, 164 USPQ 642, 645-46 (CCPA 1970).
On page 2 of the answer, the Examiner states that the
reasons for the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection
are given in the final rejection. There, the Examiner argues
that there is a contradiction, because Appellant's claim 52
requires that the discharge and the trigger pulse be
"substantially simultaneous" while dependent claim 53 requires
a delay between these events.
Appellant argues on page 11 of the brief that claims 53
and 54 are in conformity with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007