Appeal No. 96-2094
Application 08/282,783
On page 7 of the final rejection, the examiner states
that the appealed claims “are rejected as prolix since they
contain long recitations or unimportant details which hide or
obscure the invention. See MPEP 706.03(g).” We simply do not
agree with the examiner’s generalized assertion that the
claims are confusing because of their length or because they
recite unspecified “unimportant details.” Furthermore, the
section of the manual cited by the examiner in support of this
rationale no longer appears in the latest revision thereof.
Accordingly, the examiner’s “prolix” rationale is not well
taken.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of
claims 2, 6-8, 12 and 13.
We reach an opposite conclusion with respect to claims 3
and 9. Claim 12, from which each of these claims ultimately
depends, calls for a brake control apparatus comprising a
guide cam surface (element 15) and a cable connector (element
13, 16, 17) coupled to a control wire and disposed in the
guide cam surface so that the distance between the cable
connector and the lever axis decreases and then increases as
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007