Appeal No. 2004-0030 Page 2
Application No. 09/337,492
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 6, which is reproduced
as follows:
6. The control panel of claim 5, said latch on said
plurality of members being disposed a first distance from a
surface of said main board, said first distance being adjustable
by moving said plurality of members through said frame and
deforming said plurality of flexible supports.
No prior art references of record have been relied upon by
the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims.
Claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 24, 26 and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking enablement.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 27, mailed
April 16, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 25, filed
August 9, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 28, filed June 16,
2003) for appellant's arguments thereagainst. Only those
arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered. See 37 CFR
1.192(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007