Appeal No. 2000-0105
Application No. 08/573,247
characteristic variable, we do not consider that one of
ordinary skill would be unable to determine the bounds of
scope of the claims. While the language is cumbersome in
form, we believe it is clear that each claim is limited to the
specific characteristic variable recited at the end of the
claim, or, as appellants argue on page 8 of their brief,
“[each] claim provides for a possibility of selection of at
least one [characteristic] variable from two different
variables and at the end specifies which one is selected.”
The expression “a moment producing impulses” in lines 3
and 4 of each claim is an obvious grammatical error and does
not render the claims indefinite.
In the last three paragraphs of the above quotation from
the examiner’s answer, the examiner indicates that all three
of the definitions of the characteristic variable at the end
of each claim are unclear. We do not agree with the examiner
as to claims 23 and 24. Reading the language of claim 23 in
light of the specification, it is evident from page 5 and
Figs. 2a and 2d that “a drop of speed . . . an impulse
emission” refers to the rate of drop in motor speed, ªn/ªt, at
the impulses (1, 2, 3 and 4 in Fig. 2d). Likewise, in claim
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007