Ex parte KIRKPATRICK II - Page 4




                 Appeal No. 1997-0272                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/277,388                                                                                                             

                          Reference is made to the briefs  and answer for the     1                                                                     
                 respective positions of appellant and the examiner.                                                                                    
                                                                     OPINION                                                                            
                          At the outset, we note that the examiner’s objection to                                                                       
                 the drawings is a petitionable, and not an appealable, matter.                                                                         
                 However, this objection appears to be tied in with the                                                                                 
                 examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.  112 and the examiner                                                                           
                 may wish to reconsider his position regarding the drawings in                                                                          
                 view of our decision, infra.                                                                                                           
                          We turn, first, to the rejections under 35 U.S.C.  112,                                                                      
                 first and second paragraphs.  Apparently, the examiner bases                                                                           
                 both of these rejections on an alleged misunderstanding of how                                                                         
                 Figures 9-14 relate to each other and how they correspond to                                                                           
                 Figures 4-7.  More specifically, the examiner questions, inter                                                                         
                 alia, where the temperature sensitive resistors are and what                                                                           
                 constitutes the temperature compensation circuit.  It is not                                                                           
                 clear to the examiner where the claimed elements are shown in                                                                          
                 the drawings.                                                                                                                          




                          1While not labeled as such, a reply brief was filed on                                                                        
                 November 17, 1999 (Paper No. 22) and entered by the examiner.                                                                          
                                                                           4                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007