Appeal No. 1996-0427
Application 08/210,224
and 20 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims
4 and 13 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. How-
ever, we do not agree with the Examiner that claims 3, 12 and
21 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second para-
graph. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4,
5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19 and 20, but we will reverse the rejec-
tion of claims 3, 12 and 21 on appeal for the reasons set
forth infra.
Turning to the rejection of claims 3, 12 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the Examiner argues
on page 3 of the answer that these claims are indefinite
because it is not
correct to recite "said signal continues to pulse between said
first voltage and said second voltage level following said
sequence." Appellants argue on page 8 of the brief that the
phrase has antecedent basis in "means responsive to an initia-
tion of turn on of said power regulator for generating a
signal comprising a sequence of a predetermined number of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007