Appeal No. 2002-0159 Page 6
Application No. 08/951,317
generating a high tension potential at the high tension secondary
coil by intermittently supplying current to the low tension
primary coil”. [answer, page 4].
Appellants argue that this rejection is based on the
improper rejection of the claims under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112. They argue that they are not required to set forth
the specifics of the conventional control circuit within the
claim. The examiner responds that the claim language does not
support the claimed functions of the not shown or described
circuit. The examiner continues that the metes and bounds of the
claimed control circuit can not be ascertained from the control
circuit described in the specification [answer, page 8].
We will not sustain this rejection of the claims on
appeal. We agree with appellants that the examiner has
essentially rejected the claims a second time based on the
alleged deficiencies noted under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. There is no requirement that appellants include specific
limitations of the control circuit within the claims which would
only serve to narrow the claimed invention. The examiner has
offered no reasonable rationale as to why the artisan would not
understand the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The
claimed control circuit is clearly recited as a circuit for
intermittently generating current from a primary coil to a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007