Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 208 and 209
Ninth issue - claims 208 and 209
Appellant argues that it is inconsistent for the
Examiner to rely on the statement in the specification that
those skilled in the art knew how to use levers to collect
pressure information as a reason why claim 208 is rendered
unpatentable over "Human Factor" and, yet, at the same time
maintain a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
(Br23):
It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner can't
have it both ways -- either it is true that those
skilled in the art know [sic, knew] how levers work in
measuring pressure (in which case the paragraph-6 [sic,
8?] rejection [in Paper No. 20] of claims 206 and 208
should be withdrawn) or they don't (in which case
claim 208 should not be rendered unpatentable by the
"Human Factors" publication, which lacks teaching of
such levers). The former is the case, consistent with
applicant's statement in the specification (page 7,
lines 2-3). . . . [Claims 208 and 209] should be
allowed for the same reasons as stated above for
claim 206.
The Examiner states that the § 112, first paragraph,
rejection says nothing about lever arms and, so, has nothing
to do with the § 103 rejection (EA10).
We assume that Appellant's reference to paragraph 6 of
Paper No. 20 was intended to refer to the § 112, second
- 32 -
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007