Appeal No. 97-4252 Page 13
Application No. 08/226,520
claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are enabled by the specie of Figure 7,
described in the paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9. In that
regard, the appellant clearly teaches that a servo-motor is
operable to detect angle and position of the bar 1 and that
the luminous devices are lit according to the circuitry 5.
While the exact details of the circuitry 5 have not been
disclosed, the examiner has not presented any reasoning why
one skilled in the art would have been unable to design the
required circuitry from the appellant's disclosure coupled
with information known in the art without undue
experimentation.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is affirmed and the decision of the examiner to
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007