Appeal No. 1998-0591
Application 08/538,517
Consequently, the examiner has not made out a prima facie
case of anticipation. To satisfy the limitations of claim 12,
the examiner referred to an increase in the linear velocity
within a zone of constant angular velocity. That is not
sufficient to meet the requirement of claim 12 that as radius
“r” increases, the linear velocity increases substantially and
the angular velocity decreases substantially.
Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of claims 12 and
13 cannot be sustained.
The Lack of Enabling Disclosure Rejection
The examiner finds problematic the fact that no specific
description is contained in the specification for the internal
structure of the disclosed control means 4. The examiner
referred to the corresponding disclosure as “a single black
box 4" (Paper No. 15, page 5). The examiner further stated
that the disclosure does not discuss how conventional systems
“can be modified to produce the desired velocity curves
illustrated in Figures 4a, 4b, 5 and 6, which are shown in a
vague schematic drawing to be discontinuous at various and
sundry amplitude levels and radius values.”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007