Ex parte NILSSEN - Page 2




          Appeal No. 96-3090                                         Page 2           
          Application 08/287,409                                                      
               Appellant entitled his application "Programmable wall                  
          switch actuator/timer".  (Paper 1.)  According to the                       
          abstract, this "actuator/timer unit can easily be mounted                   
          directly to the outside of the face plate of a standard wall                
          switch [and] can be programmed to operate the lever of a wall               
          switch in accordance with a program that automatically repeats              
          on a diurnal, weekly or other cyclical basis."  Claim 50 is                 
          representative of the claim subject matter (Paper 28):                      
                    50. An arrangement comprising:                                    
                         a wall switch having a face plate and a                      
               switch lever protruding through an aperture in the                     
               face plate; the face plate being of ordinary size                      
               and shape; and                                                         
                         a programmable actuator mounted onto the                     
               wall switch in engagement with the switch lever; the                   
               programmable actuator being further characterized by                   
               causing repetitive and periodic reciprocating                          
               movement of the switch lever in accordance with a                      
               pre-established program.                                               
                                     REJECTIONS                                       
               The examiner rejected claims 44-65 under 35 U.S.C.                     
          § 112[1] as lacking a basis in the specification.  The                      
          examiner also objected to the specification on the same basis.              
          (Paper 29 at 2.)   The examiner rejected claims 44-49 under2                                                           

               2    The examiner failed to repeat this ground of                      
          rejection in his answer (Paper 32 at 2-3), but did defend the               
          rejection in his response to Appellant's argument (Paper 32                 
          at 6).                                                                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007