Appeal No. 1997-1892
Application 08/209,638
For all practical purposes, the board would
limit appellant to claims involving the specific
materials disclosed in the examples, ... . However,
to provide effective incentives, claims must
adequately protect inventors ... .
We agree with the Examiner that there has to be “three
electrodes”, a first electrode split in two portions and a
second electrode away from the first. We note that the claims
on appeal do so recite. However, we do not agree with the
Examiner that the claims are only limited to the structural
relationship shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of the disclosure. Other
oscillators of similar structural relationship which would
satisfy the needed oscillations requirements would be suitable
for the claimed apparatus, such as, an oscillator having the
two similar electrodes located on the opposite sides of the
same surface, as Appellants have pointed out above.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 to
7, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for lack
of enablement.
REVERSED
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007