Appeal No. 96-0939
Application 07/853,221
as we have interpreted claim 10 as requiring the expression
“to regulate displacement of the blocking disc” to be a
function of the control means and not the drive module, and we
have construed the disclosure as stating that the drive module
regulates displacement of the blocking disc, we are in
agreement that claim 10 is misdescriptive in this respect.
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that claim 10 fails to
particularly point out the structure of the invention as
disclosed. Therefore, we will affirm the rejection of claims
10 through 15.
As an additional matter, we note that the examiner has
stated that the phrase “the motor” in claim 15 lacks an
antecedent basis. In our view, the expression “the motor”
clearly refers to the stepper motor in the preceding claims.
While this fact might bear correction, we are not of the view
that it renders the claim indefinite. As noted above, the art
rejection of claim 16 has been withdrawn by the examiner’s
answer. Thus, the rejection of claims 10 through 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is the only rejection before
us, and this rejection has been affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007