Appeal No. 96-2673
Application No. 07/851,887
peak magnitude of the alternating lamp current to be distinctly
lower than twice its RMS magnitude.” Even though appellant then
makes a good faith effort, at pages 4-5 of the principal brief,
to respond to the non-explained rejection, the examiner’s
response is complete silence. Thus, we have an unexplained
outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, first paragraph,
applied by the examiner, an unnecessary, but good faith, effort
by appellant to respond to that rejection and no explanation by
the examiner as to why, if appellant’s speculation as to the
grounds of the rejection is correct, appellant’s response does
not overcome the rejection. If, in fact, it is the last four
lines of claim 15 which the examiner contends has no support in
the original disclosure, the examiner had every opportunity to
explain exactly why this language has no such support. No
explanation is given by the examiner.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims 15 through
17 and 32 through 43 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
' 112, as being based on an inadequate written description, is
reversed for failure to present any reasonable basis therefor.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 24, 25 and 29 through
31 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. ' 112 as being
indefinite. The examiner’s rationale is stated, in toto, at
pages 3-4 of the answer:
With respect to claims 24-25, indefiniteness
arises as to the subject matter encompassed by
cancelled claim 7 relative to claim language much like
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007