Appeal No. 97-1025 Application No. 08/183,571 of said control pads" as recited in claim 1; and (3) "said control pads do not project beyond said gripping surface" as recited in claims 1 and 23. The appellant's argument (brief, pp. 23-25) regarding item (1) is not convincing. The appellant is correct that the original specification (p. 4) states that the cavities 30 may be of any conventional shape: rectangular, round, oval, etc. and that those various shapes are shown in the drawings. However, our review of the originally filed disclosure fails to find any support for the predetermined shapes identifying corresponding control means. That is, the originally filed disclosure would not have reasonably conveyed to an artisan that the shape of the recess identified the device being controlled by the control pad. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 22, and its dependent claim 24, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. For the reasons set forth in the appellant's brief (pp. 10- 23), it is our opinion that items (2) and (3) above are supported by the originally filed disclosure. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 12 to 15, 21, 23, 25 to 29 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007