Appeal No. 2001-2021
Application No. 09/206,393
disclosure how the joy sticks optionally control
vehicle movement. The disclosure clearly sets out
the structural location of the joy sticks but fails
to provide how they work.
In regards to claims 28-30 and 37, it is unclear
in light of [the] disclosure how the joy stick
maintains its control function while removed from
the vehicle-interior-side operating position and
operated outside the motor vehicle. The art of
motor vehicles which utilize a joy stick to act as a
control element is old and well known, wherein the
joystick is generally electrical in nature and
connected by wires (as seen in US Patent 5,086,870
to Bolduc). Applicant states that the joy stick is
removed from the interior of the motor vehicle and
used outside the motor vehicle but fails to
[disclose] how the connection between the joy stick
and the controlled device is still in communication
once the joy stick is removed [final rejection,
pages 2 and 3].
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 25) for the
appellants’ argument and to the answer (Paper No. 26) for the
examiner’s response.
DISCUSSION
The examiner’s statement and explanation of the appealed
rejection are inconsonant in that the statement of the
rejection identifies a written description issue while the
explanation of the rejection pertains to enablement matters.
The written description and enablement provisions of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, are, of course, separate and distinct.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007