Ex parte PARADA - Page 20




                Appeal No. 97-1025                                                                                                            
                Application No. 08/183,571                                                                                                    


                statement shifted to the examiner  and the examiner has not4                                                                      
                supplied any such evidence.  Consequently, there is no factual                                                                
                basis to establish that it would have been obvious to have                                                                    
                provided a plurality of control pads positioned in a separate                                                                 
                "open at one side recess" as recited in claims 1, 3, 6, 23, 35                                                                
                and 43.                                                                                                                       


                                                   New grounds of rejection                                                                   
                         In accordance with 37 CFR  1.196(b), we introduce the                                                               
                following new grounds of rejection.                                                                                           


                Written description                                                                                                           
                         Claims 3, 8, 10, 11, 20, 35, 38, and 40 to 44 are rejected                                                           
                under 35 U.S.C.  112, first paragraph, as the specification, as                                                              
                originally filed, does not provide support for the invention as                                                               
                is now claimed, for the reasons set forth below.                                                                              


                         As set forth previously, "said recesses have various                                                                 
                predetermined shapes identifying corresponding control means"                                                                 
                recited in claim 22 is not supported by the originally filed                                                                  
                disclosure.  This same limitation is recited in claim 20.                                                                     

                         4See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure  2144.03.                                                                 
                                                                     20                                                                       





Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007