Appeal No. 98-0584
Application 08/238,948
specification, the nature of the reed switch and the strength
of the magnetic field from the permanent magnet are such that
the reed switch will be closed "when the permanent magnet is
approximately one inch away" (emphasis added). This being the
case, the magnetic field intensity detector (e.g., reed switch
136) can be fairly considered to "detect the predetermined
relative proximity" as claimed.
We also observe that the examiner on page 8 of the answer
states that
claim 1 does not set forth the limitation
of a "proximity detector" in a manner that
warrants coverage under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph.
We are at a complete loss to understand such a contention
inasmuch as claim 1 has no limitation which is drafted in a
means-plus-function format.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-25, 27, 28 and 31-39 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 14, 18 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hewitt, the
examiner has taken the position that Hewitt's detector is a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007