Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
question. This basis for the rejection of claim 135 is
reversed.
Fourteenth issue - claims 136 and 137
The Examiner states (OA7):
It is unclear what relationship, if any, exists
between the "pressure signals" recited in claims
136-137 and the "pressure signals" recited in claim
117; in particular, it is unclear if these are the same
or different pressure signals.
Appellant volunteers to insert the word "the" before
the phrase "pressure signals" to clarify the antecedent
basis and notes that this formal rejection was raised for
the first time in the fourth Office Action (Paper No. 20)
(Br27-28). Because we think the minor language problem is
somewhat indefinite and because Appellant volunteers to fix
it, we sustain the rejection of claims 136 and 137.
Fifteenth issue - claim 207
The Examiner states (OA7):
In claim 207, line 3, "capable of detecting
pressure..." is indefinite as it is unclear if the
pressure transducers in fact detect pressure in the
manner recited; in general, merely reciting that an
element is capable of performing a function says
nothing about whether the element actually performs the
function.
- 38 -
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007