Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 24
Application No. 08/132,940
feedback quantity." Additionally, since the feedback signal
28 is generated only when
the energy calculations equal the setting of the user control,
the claimed difference between the energy calculations and the
setting of the user control being narrowed appears to be
misdescriptive.
The "added phrase" lacks the required written desciption,
as the specification, as originally filed, does not provide
support for the invention as is now claimed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed; the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 8, 13 and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed; and the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 9 through 12 and 14 through 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection of one
or more claims, this decision contains a new ground of
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007