Appeal No. 98-2691
Application No. 08/529,041
Croteau 5,083,487 Jan. 28,
1992
Coleman 5,339,715 Aug. 23,
1994
The appealed claims stand finally rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 1 to 12, 27 and 28, unpatentable for failure to
comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph;
(2) Claims 1 to 9, 11, 13, 19, 21 to 23, 25, 27 and 28,
unpatentable over Croteau in view of Coleman, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a);
(3) Claims 12 and 20, unpatentable over Croteau in view of
Coleman and Pearl, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection (1)
The basis of this rejection is stated on pages 4 and 5 of
the examiner’s answer as:
In claims 1 and 2, no structural
cooperation for the actuating servo has been
recited, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
What is the actuating servo connected to? In
claim 1, the recitations of "an actuating servo
connected to move. . ." and "regulating means
connected to control. . . " are vague and
indefinite since it is unclear what the elements
are connected to. Similarly, in claim 12, there
is insufficient structural cooperation recited
for the gearing encoder. The recitation of the
encoder "connected to monitor. . . " is vague
and indefinite. What is the gearing encoder
connected to?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007