Appeal No. 1998-2445
Application No. 08/604,228
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 15) and the
answer for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
The lack of enablement rejection is reversed for lack of
a reasonable basis for rejecting the claims on appeal.
In short, the examiner provides a list of sensor elements
that allegedly “has not been disclosed” (Answer, page 4). A
review of appellants’ summary of the invention (Brief, pages 3
through 8) clearly suggests otherwise. We agree with
appellants’ statement (Brief, page 8) that the same discussion
of the invention can be found on pages 9 through 13 of the
specification. The relationship between the spring 5, the
ferromagnetic inertia body 3 and the receiving element 2 is
thoroughly explained throughout the noted portion of the
specification. In Figure 2 of the drawing, the inertia body 3
is tilted against the side of receiving element 2 by
activation of magnetic coil 7 (specification, page 10).
“Since the ferromagnetic inertia body 3 is moved back farther
from the coil of the detector 10, a change of the damping of
the electrical oscillation circuit (compare FIG. 4) of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007