Ex parte OLNOWICH et al. - Page 7




          Appeal No. 1998-0710                                                        
          Application 08/625,379                                                      


          Although appellants’ reply brief points out numerous                        
          differences between the disclosed invention and the Newman                  
          device, we do not find any of these differences supported by                
          the broad language of claim 21.  The measure of the invention               
          is the claim, and objects and advantages of the invention as                
          set forth in the disclosure will not be incorporated into the               
          claim language.  Therefore, the alleged differences between                 
          the invention and the Newman device as argued in the reply                  
          brief are not considered pertinent to the claimed invention.                
          In summary, the language of claim 21 can be read on the                     
          selectable switch of Newman.  Therefore, the decision of the                
          examiner rejecting claims 21 and 22 is affirmed.                            







          No time period for taking any subsequent action in                          
          connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR                    
          § 1.136(a).                                                                 
          AFFIRMED                                                                    


                                          7                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007