Appeal No. 1999-0933 Page 8
Application No. 08/512,396
In accordance with the foregoing, it is clear that the decision of the examiner
is reversed.
In addition to our determination above, we find it necessary to REMAND this
application to the examiner for a consideration of whether or not a rejection of the
claims on appeal would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
since the invention as defined in the claims on appeal appears to be inconsistent with
that described in appellants’ specification. More specifically, we note that claim 1 on
appeal requires, in the clause setting forth the termination controlling means, that the
first switching valve (e.g., 70FL) be placed at said interrupted position and said
second switching valve be placed at said communicated position at a time of
termination of control of motion characteristics of said vehicle by said vehicle motion
characteristics controlling means. However, the placing of the second switching
valve “at said communicated position” as set forth in claim 1 appears to be
inconsistent with the clear disclosure of the invention on pages 19 and 20 of
appellants’ specification. While appellants have not clearly identified exactly which of
the valves in their control apparatus corresponds to the “second switching valve,”
such valve must be either the valve (50FL) or the valve (46FL), both of which are
described in the specification as being at the “interrupted” or “on” position at a time
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007