Appeal No. 94-2054
Application 07/827,680
OPINION
Claims 2-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, “as failing to provide an adequate written
description and failing to teach how to make and/or use the
invention.” Examiner’s Answer at 7. We understand this to be
a rejection for lack of an enabling disclosure.
The examiner states that “[t]he specification is
devoid of any description pertaining to the manner in which
the valves are modulated to implement anti-lock control.”
Examiner’s Answer at 7. However, because the claims do not
specify the manner in which the valves are modulated to
implement anti-lock control, no enablement of that is
necessary.
The examiner further states that “it is unclear as
to how the ‘brake pressure control signals’ are utilized in
modulating the valves in any new manner.” Examiner’s Answer
at 7-8. During prosecution Appellants submitted to the
examiner a publication and patents to demonstrate that those
skilled in the art are able to control brake pressure using
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007