Appeal No. 97-1177
Application 08/368,026
new ground of rejection, also under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Therefore, in
the interest of administrative efficiency, we will sustain the examiner’s § 112 rejection,
pro forma, and incorporate the grounds of that rejection in our own rejection under 37
CFR § 1.196(b). Appellants will then have the opportunity to respond as specified in
parts (1) and (2) of § 1.196(b).
The fact that we find a number of the claims to be indefinite does not here
preclude our consideration of the merits of the rejections of those claims under 35
U.S.C. § § 102 or 103. Cf. Ex parte Saceman, 27 USPQ2d 1472, 1474 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 1993).
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § § 102(b) and 103
We will not sustain either of these rejections. The independent claims recite,
inter alia, the following:
Claim 1: “visible light intensity sensor means positioned to sense a decrease of
visible light responsive to said object approaching said water rinsing device and for
generating an electrical signal indicative of said decrease of visible light;”
Claim 11: “visible light sensor means for generating an electrical current
responsive to the presence of said user;”
Claim 12: “a visible light sensor to detect an object in substantial proximity to
said water rinsing device,”
Claim 19: “(1) testing, at said predetermined intervals, visible light sensor means
for sensing the approach of said user to said faucet;”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007