Appeal No. 1998-0212 Page 18
Reissue Application No. 07/837,588
understatement. In fact, claims 85 and 37 are substantially
identical in scope.
As recited in the preambles of claims 85 and 37, both
claims are directed toward a “method of operating a laundry
machine.” The preambles of both claims, moreover, specify
substantially identical components of the washing machine,
viz., a “container,” a “reciprocatable agitator,” an “electric
motor,” a “setting means,” and an “electronic control means.”
The preambles of both claims also recite the same “plurality
of sequences of operation selected from an agitation sequence
and a spinning sequence” for the washing machine. In
addition, the methods of claims 85 and 37 both comprise
substantially identical steps, viz., “setting,” “sensing,”
“adjusting,” and “sensing.”
The appellant argues that claim 85 “is written in Jepson
format and therefore relies on the inventive motor control
system (as in the allowed claims) for patentability.” (Reply
Br. at 5.) The appellant fails to show how the rewriting
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007