Appeal No. 98-0584
Application 08/238,948
there is no support, either in the actual
holdings of prior cases or in the statute,
for the proposition, put forward here, that
“functional” language, in and of itself,
renders a claim improper [under
35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph].
See also In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215, 210 USPQ 609, 611
(CCPA 1981): “It is well settled that there is nothing intrin-
sically wrong in defining something by what it does rather
than what it is.”
Pages 9 and 10 of the answer, the examiner questions how
the magnetic field intensity detector can be considered to 4
detect "relative proximity." However, taking claim 3 as
exemplary, it is set forth therein that the "proximity
detector" includes at least one permanent magnet (e.g., magnet
126) and a magnetic field intensity detector (e.g., normally
open reed switch 136). It is apparent from the disclosure
that the permanent magnet and reed switch are movable relative
to one another and, as explained on page 14 of the
4Consistent with the specification, one of ordinary skill
in the art would recognize that "magnetic field intensity
detector" is used in the sense that a mechanism (i.e., a
switch) is actuated in response to a predetermined magnetic
field intensity, as distinguished from a detector which
actually senses varying degrees of magnetic field intensity.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007