Appeal No. 2000-0502
Application No. 08/890,438
controller for controlling range shifting in such a system.
Claims 21 to 26 are reproduced in the appendix of appellants’
brief, except that claim 26 should be dependent on claim 25.1
Claims 21 to 26 stand finally rejected as being
unpatentable for failure to comply with the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
On page 2 of the brief, appellants state that claims
21 to 26 stand or fall together. Accordingly, pursuant to 37
CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7), we select claim 21 and will decide the appeal
based thereon.
Claim 21 recites, inter alia:
range shift sensing means for sensing shift
selector positions indicative of an operator
intent to shift (a) from a low-range ratio to a
high-range ratio and providing a first input
signal indicative thereof, and (b) from a high-
range ratio to a low-range ratio and providing a
second input signal indicative thereof,
1In reviewing claims 21 to 26, we note that in the event
of further prosecution, the examiner should consider (1)
whether to reject claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, since claim 22 is dependent on claim 1,
which has been cancelled, See Ex parte Brice, 110 USPQ 560
(Bd. App. 1955), and (2) whether to reject claims 21 to 26 as
unpatentable over claims 21 to 25 of Patent No. 5,673,592 on
the ground of obviousness-type double patenting.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007