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 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007