Appeal No. 1999-1960
Application No. 09/075,631
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
The examiner’s rationale for this rejection is found on
page 4 of the answer and reads as follows:
It is submitted that the recitation
“for operating said solenoid in real-time”
[in claim 20, lines 12-13] is unduly functional
and is not supported by a “means” recitation.
Furthermore “real-time” is hyphenated in claim
20, whereas “real time” is not hyphenated
in the specification. It appears [that] the
recitation of “real-time” is unspecific and is
not specific enough to limit the claim to
a means which operates the solenoid at all
times when the probe senses liquid.
We will not sustain this rejection. First, to the extent
the rejection is based on the premise that the recitation of
the hyphenated term “real-time” in the claims as opposed to
the unhyphenated term “real time” that appears in the
specification introduces an uncertainty into the claims, we do
not agree. In our view, the ordinarily skilled artisan would
consider the terms “real-time” (claims) and “real time”
(specification) to mean one and the same thing, namely, that
the present invention does not incorporate any non-inherent
delays in the response time of the valve to the detection of
condensate, such that the valve opens and closes substantially
instantaneously with the detection by the sensor of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007