Appeal No. 2004-2235
Application No. 09/195,005
device to function in the manner intended, the examiner has not
cogently explained, and it is not apparent, why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been able, without undue
experimentation, to make and use the claimed device in
conjunction with such a system.
Finally, notwithstanding the lack of any description in the
appellant’s disclosure of a control system to appropriately
operate switches 27, the examiner has again failed to cogently
explain, and it is not apparent, why one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have been able, without undue experimentation, to
make and use the claimed device with such a control system.
Thus, taking into account the scope of claims 7, 11 and 12
and the evidence and argument now of record, the examiner’s
position that the appellant's disclosure is non-enabling with
respect to the subject matter recited in these claims is
unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 7, 11 and 12.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007