Appeal No. 95-3565
Application 08/053,814
signals from the controller.” Appellants argue that the
specification properly incorporates by reference patents
describing the recited features. The examiner nonetheless
maintains the rejection, finding that the incorporation by
reference would merely invite a “wild goose chase.” Appellants
point out that it is permissible to incorporate disclosure by
reference.
In addition, the examiner states there is no
explanation of how to support vibrator 4 with constrained
rotation and translation. The examiner’s objection appears to be
directed toward a statement in the specification, not in the
claims. Examiner’s Answer at 3-4. We can only speculate that
the examiner may have had in mind the recited “means of providing
a normal force to maintain a contact between the object and the
vibrator.”
Upon reviewing the originally filed disclosure,
including that incorporated by reference, we find an adequate
written description of the claimed invention. Therefore, we will
not sustain the rejection.
(2) Indefiniteness
The examiner’s indefiniteness rejection is largely
grounded on the position, rejected above, that there is no
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007