Appeal No. 1999-0451 Page 3
Application No. 08/555,275
7, line 23 of the specification, and in original claim 1, line
12, and claim 7, line 2. We have fully considered the
arguments in the request for reconsideration, but are still of
the view that, taking into consideration the lack of disclosure
of a timetable, how a timetable would be determined, etc., the
application as filed would not convey with reasonable clarity
to those skilled in the art that appellant was in possession of
“the application of braking force... in regular steps or
degrees in a timetable,” which is what appellant asserted on
page 10 of his brief was being claimed.
Accordingly, the request for reconsideration (rehearing)
is denied insofar as it seeks any reversal or modification of
Paper No. 20.
DENIED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMES M. MEISTER ) APPEALS
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007