Appeal No. 96-0126
Application 07/942,400
appealed claims 1 through 10 under the second paragraph of 35
USC § 112 pursuant to our authority set forth in 37 CFR §
1.196(b).
As indicated earlier at footnote 2, the appellants have
attempted to amend the equation defined by independent claim 1
and thus implicitly have acknowledged that the claimed
equation is inaccurate due to the absence of the symbol *.
However, this claim is also inaccurate in that the recitation
?+1? should read -- -1 -- as reflected on pages 8 and 10 of the
specification. In this regard, we understand that the
appellants have unsuccessfully attempted to amend this aspect
of the specification so that the equation on pages 8 and 10
would read ?+1? in accordance with claim 1 rather than ?-1? in
accordance with the original equation disclosure.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the original equation
disclosure is in fact accurate and concommitantly that the
appellants’ attempted amendment to the specification
disclosure would have rendered the equation inaccurate. This
is because the original equation disclosure on specification
pages 8 and 9 (i.e., ?w = * (cos 2 -1)?), when solved with the
appellants’ disclosed and claimed * and 2 values, yields w
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007