Appeal No. 1996-3399
Application 08/295,150
7 of the answer, the examiner's view is that there is no
antecedent
basis for the safety aspects of the claims relating to the
recited claim feature of "fire-initiation hazard." Part of
the examiner's reasoning there appears to be based upon the
uncorrected current value at page 6 of the specification as
filed just discussed in the context of the enablement
rejection. We note again that the current value in the middle
of page 6 has been corrected. On the other hand, appellant
is of the view at page 3 of the first addendum to the appeal
brief that the examiner appeared to him to be confused
between the indefiniteness of the claim and the lack of
support in the specification for the noted feature. For his
part, the appellant has already noted at page 4 of the
principal brief on appeal various portions of the
specification which supported or discussed the safety aspects
associated with the noted "fire-initiation hazard" of the
claims on appeal. Furthermore, from our study of each
independent claim on appeal, claims 49, 56 and 58 where this
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007