Appeal No. 2002-0159 Page 5
Application No. 08/951,317
The control circuit section 7 switches on and
off the primary current supplied to the
primary coil at suitable timings to provide
high tension voltage supplied to the spark
plug [page 5, lines 24-27].
We agree with appellants that this disclosure provides written
description support for the objected to portion of claim 1
because it clearly establishes that an intermittent current is
supplied to the low tension primary coil which generates a high
potential at the secondary coil which is connected to the spark
plug.
Appellants have also indicated that the control circuit
operating as described in claim 1 is nothing more than a prior
art control circuit such as the control circuit shown in Taruya
which was cited by the examiner in this case. It is not clear to
us why the examiner requires a schematic disclosure of this prior
art control circuit which is schematically shown in the prior art
patent. Since appellants have pointed to a suitable prior art
control circuit and since the examiner has offered no cogent
rationale as to why this disclosure is not enabling, we do not
sustain the rejection of the claims based on lack of enablement.
We now consider the examiner’s rejection of all the
claims on appeal under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
With respect to claims 1, 4, 9, 10 and 14, the examiner states
that appellants “should clarify the specific control circuit for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007