Appeal No. 1997-1351
Application 08/127,924
§ 112; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient
disclosure (§ 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected
on that ground." In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909,
164 USPQ 642, 645-46 (CCPA 1970). There is some
disagreement whether the evidence relied on by the examiner
to demonstrate that the applicant has not claimed what he
regards as his invention must be found outside the
specification. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 1239-40,
188 USPQ 356, 363-64 (CCPA 1976) (Baldwin, J., concurring).
Claim 19
The Examiner considers claim 19 to be incomplete
because "[t]he apparatus which would enable the processors
to cooperate with each other to perform a control function
is not recited" (FR2), apparently referring to the fact that
the interface module 6 having controllers 14 and 15 and
blockable coupling element 16 is not recited as part of the
claim. The Examiner considers the interface module
necessary for the control processor and the remainder
processor to interconnect with each other to perform a
control function.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007