Appeal No. 1996-3399
Application 08/295,150
Appellant believes the examiner's view is that the
specification provides no support for certain presently
claimed features. With respect to this rejection at page 3 of
the principal brief on appeal, appellant indicates and
recognizes the error of the current value presented at page 6
and argues that the noted portion of page 6 of the
specification as filed relates to unclaimed, electric shock
safety features. Appellant even presents a proposed amendment
to the specification at page 2 of the first addendum to the
brief to correct the error in the current value listed at page
6 of the specification. It is noted, however, that this
amendment is unnecessary since it was listed at page 1 of the
amendment filed on July 24, 1995. It is thus apparent that
there is no substantive basis or deficiency in the
specification as filed to support the examiner's views that
claims 49 through 60 are not enabled within the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We next turn to the rejection of claims 49, 52, 56
and 58 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. At page
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007