Appeal No. 97-0210
Application No. 08/157,050
increase voltage or the motor could never run." The examiner
also explains (Answer, page 6-7), that the "difference of
interpretation [as to whether the speed is continuously
adjusted in part or all of the predetermined speed range] may
have be [sic] the source of the above 112 rejection as well."
In response to the examiner's allegation of
indefiniteness, appellant contends (Brief, page 5) that
"[c]laim 11 is directed to the feature of continuous
adjustability based on reducing the voltage below a certain
level." Appellant points to the specification, stating
(Brief, page 5) that the scope of the claims is "clear when
interpreted in light of the specification." The claims,
however, read that the regulating device adjusts the speed by
decreasing the voltage, or rather that the speed changes with
the voltage, not that the continuous adjustability results
once the voltage is reduced below a certain level.
The difference between the claims and the specification,
along with appellant's argument and the examiner's reference
to a "difference of interpretation" (see above), indicate to
us that the claims are not indefinite, as asserted by the
examiner, but rather are misdescriptive, as the specification
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007