Appeal No. 98-0584
Application 08/238,948
Claims 4, 13, 17, 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as being based upon a non-enabling
disclosure. Each of these claims set forth that "the magnetic
intensity detector generates an electrical proximity signal
indicating whether or not the guard is within the
predetermined relative proximity to the working surface"
(emphasis added). In the first place, the appellant has not
disclosed any structure whatsoever that generates a signal.
That is, in the appellant's device reed switches 136, 138 are
merely closed thus allowing current to simply flow, as
distinguished from "generating a signal." In the second
place, even if the simple flow of current through the reed
switches were considered to be "generating a signal," this
"signal" or current flow does not take place when the guard is
"not" within the predetermined relative proximity inasmuch as
these reed switch are once again open.
Claims 4, 13, 17, 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. In order to satisfy the second
paragraph of § 112, a claim must accurately define the
invention in the technical sense. See In re Knowlton, 481
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007