Appeal No. 1997-1892
Application 08/209,638
reply brief, pages 2 to 9] that the disclosure, as originally
filed, is indeed enabling as to the appealed claims.
Appellants point out [brief, page 11] that “one ... would know
that the two electrodes must be spaced and arranged to attain
oscillation of the quartz crystal.” Further, Appellants
advocate [brief, page 15] that “while being a preferred
structural relationship ..., the location of the first
electrode ... and the second electrode ... on first and second
surfaces ... of the quartz oscillator 101 is certainly not a
critical structural relationship.” Still
further, Appellants argue [brief, page 16] that “if the
invention could be practiced with a cylindrical quartz
oscillator with the first and second electrodes located on
opposite sides thereof, it could be argued that the electrodes
are on the same surface.”
We are convinced that Appellants are not strictly limited
to claim only the details of the embodiments disclosed in
their application. We subscribe to the statement quoted by
Appellants on page 8 of the reply brief:
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007