Appeal No. 96-3090 Page 7
Application 08/287,409
(CCPA 1962) (reversing a prior art rejection); In re Wilson,
424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970) (reversing
a prior art rejection); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946,
42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (reversing a written
description rejection). For the purposes of the other
rejections, claims 44-49 are no longer on appeal.
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
We reverse the rejection of the remaining claims under
section 112[1]. The examiner grounds this rejection on the
failure of the specification to support the term "sub-
assembly". (Paper 32 at 6.) Whatever the merits of such a
rejection as applied to claim 44, it has no applicability to
claims 50-65, which do not use the offending term.
ANTICIPATION - SCHNEIDINGER
Appellant groups together all of the claims rejected
under section 102 over Schneidinger. (Paper 31 (Brief) at 3;
see also 37 CFR § 1.192(c) (1995) (requiring separate grouping
and separate arguments).) We choose claim 50 as the broadest
of the remaining claims in this group.
Schneidinger teaches an arrangement comprising an
ordinary wall switch 10 and face plate 12 with a switch
lever 18 protruding through the face plate. (2:32-37; Figs. 1
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007