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