Appeal No. 2000-0105
Application No. 08/573,247
Applicant should take note that the above are just
examples of 35 U.S.C. § 112 problems in the claims,
the number of which is too great to list
individually and all of which must be corrected.
Also, in claim 23, it is not clear what is meant
by “a drop of speed of said. . . motor per time during or
after an impulse emission”.
In claim 24, it is not clear what is meant by “a
profile of an induced armature voltage” nor is it
clear
how a profile of a voltage can be a variable.
In claim 25, it is not clear what is meant by “a
profile of a current” nor is it clear how a profile of a
current can be a variable.
First, with regard to the underlined portion of the
above-quoted excerpt from the examiner’s answer, we do not
consider that such portion complies with 37 CFR 1.113(b),
which requires that in the final rejection the examiner shall
“clearly stat[e] the reasons in support” of the applicable
grounds of rejection. See also MPEP § 706.07, “Statement of
Grounds.” Stating that all “§ 112 problems” in the claims
“must be corrected,” without specifying what they are, is not
a clear statement of the reasons in support of the rejection,
but rather requires the applicants to speculate as to what
problems the examiner has in mind, and then to respond
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007