Appeal No. 1998-2445
Application No. 08/604,228
body; an inertia body accommodated in said housing; a detector
arranged in said housing for detecting a horizontal
displacement of said inertia body, said housing having a base
plate on which said detector is arranged so that determination
of a vertical displacement of said inertia body is also
performed, said inertia body having a shape and a mass
selected so that for at least one of a lateral tilting and a
vertical lifting of said inertia body the following values are
predetermined:
-an inclination angle of the moveable body is
at least equal 55o
-an omni-directional acceleration in a horizontal plane
is at least equal 1.4 g,
-a vertical acceleration is at least equal 0.4 g
wherein g is acceleration due to gravity.
The examiner did not rely on any references in rejecting
the claims on appeal.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 15 through 19 and 21 through 23 stand
rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack
of enablement . 3
3The rejection is only directed to lack of enablement in
the final rejection. Thereafter, the examiner mixes lack of
enablement (Answer, pages 4 and 5) with lack of written
description (Answer, page 5). The examiner is reminded that a
lack of enablement rejection under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is separate and distinct from a lack of written
description rejection under the same statutory provision. In
re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1520, 222 USPQ 369, 372 (Fed. Cir.
1984). For this reason, any gratuitous comments concerning
lack of written description will be ignored for purposes of
this appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007