Appeal No. 96-1499
Application 08/133,013
the principal brief at page 9, and further contend that the
feature was
carefully described in the immediately preceding section with
reference to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112.
First, the limitation of the “vehicle identification
number” was discussed with regard to the rejections under 35
U.S.C. 112 because this limitation was the focus of that
rejection. We fail to find any relevance of this argument
with regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). If
appellants’ position was that this was a distinguishing
feature over the applied prior art, it could have been argued
as such in the section of the brief related to arguments
against the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Second, reference to page 9 of the principal brief finds
a mere general statement that “[s]everal features distinguish
the claims...from Steel” and then two clauses of claim 1,
“means for producing...” and “actuator means...” are recited.
There is no specific discussion as to how, specifically, such
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007