Ex parte MATTES et al. - Page 4

          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               
               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                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007