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