Appeal No. 1997-3856
Application No. 08/313,794
No. 15, filed April 18, 1997), Reply Brief (Paper No. 17,
filed September 30, 1997), and Supplemental Reply Brief (Paper
No. 22, filed March 10, 1998) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims and the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 8 through 17.
The examiner states (Answer, page 3) that "Claim 8 is
incomplete regarding the limitation 'means for controlling
said head conveyor.'" Although the examiner appears to
recognize (Answer, page 5) sensors 30, 91, and 91' as
providing supporting structure for the means in question, the
examiner "submits that it is not the Appellant's intention to
include the claimed means for detecting in the recited 'means
for controlling said head conveyor...' recited in independent
claim 8 as evidenced by the further recitation of said
detecting means in dependent claims 15-17." The examiner's
position apparently is that the phrase "further comprising
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007