Appeal No. 1997-0440
Application No. 08/582,237
of appeal, is regarded as abandoned and will not be
considered. It is our function as a court to decide disputed
issues, not to create them.”)
Analysis
At the outset, we note that Appellant elects to have the
claims stand or fall together [brief, page 2].
Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner asserts [answer, page 3] that “[i]n claim 5,
the language therein is not at all understood nor seen to find
support. Clearly, from the specification, the ‘hall sensor’
provides the ‘first signal’, but is separate from the
circuit.” The first statement seems to point to the lack of
enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and not to
any thing under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. However,
the Examiner has not pursued any further the possibility of
the lack of enablement, and we do not raise this issue. The
second statement still does not form a basis for a rejection
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. Appellant has illustrated [brief,
pages 27 to 28] how claim 5 is to be read in the context of
the disclosure. We find that the metes and bounds of claim 5
are clear in accordance with the precepts of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007