Appeal No. 96-1943
Application No. 08/147,008
lines, give them a name and a number but do not
describe their construction and operation.
Publications and patents may provide background
material but cannot overcome the lack of showing and
description of the claimed elements. Micrometers
are well-known tools to machinists and "micro" would
clearly mean small adjustments are intended.
However, appellants have not shown and described any
specific structure to accomplish the intended
result.
With respect to the “locks”, for example, page
16 allegedly defines the computer controlled locks,
e.g. 152 in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 shows element 152 as a
block attached to track 154. No structure is shown
how that block acts as a brake or anything else.
Where is the computer control connection to the
block 152? We only have appellants' designation of
that block as a computer-controlled brake. Nothing
on page 16 or anywhere else in the specification
shows how that mere block functions.
“Driver”, alias element 150 in Fig. 3, is
another “block” showing no capability to drive or
be controlled by the computer.
The endpoint sensors, e.g. 95 in Fig. 2 is also
vague. Element 95 can scarcely be distinguished
from element 94. How does that indicate an endpoint
sensor or any other kind of sensor?
The term “generally perpendicular” is vague; the
term “perpendicular[”] is clear. Applicant has not
defined how much deviation meets the “generally
perpendicular” condition. [Pages 2 and 3.]
From the above, it appears that the examiner's position
regarding enablement is based, in a large part, upon the fact
that the appellant has used block diagrams in the drawings to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007