Appeal No. 1998-2445
Application No. 08/604,228
detector occurs” (specification, page 10). There is “no
movement of the spring” (Answer, page 4) in Figure 2 because
this is strictly a test mode. In Figure 5, the spring 5, the
receiving element 2 and the inertia body 3 have all undergone
movement because of vertical acceleration of the sensor
arrangement. Figure 7 illustrates an over rolling of the
sensor arrangement.
The examiner’s request for additional software and
hardware details of the “central evaluation unit” is not
reasonable since the appellants are not claiming any specific
type of evaluation unit, and the examiner has not explained
why the skilled artisan would have to resort to undue
experimentation to arrive at an evaluation unit that takes
advantage of the noted “a change of the damping of the
electrical oscillation circuit” 10 (Figure 4).
In summary, the lack of enablement rejection is reversed
because the scope of the claims on appeal bears a reasonable
correlation to the scope of enablement provided by the
specification. Genentech, Inc. v Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d
1361, 1365, 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,
118 S. Ct. 397 (1997).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007