Appeal No. 97-2650 Page 3
Application No. 08/489,257
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to an electrically
operated barrier system for preventing access to a passageway.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 12, which appears in Appendix B of the
appellants' brief.
Claims 12 through 14 and 17 through 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to provide an
adequate written description of the invention.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
28, mailed February 12, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 27, filed October 23, 1996) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007