Appeal No. 2005-0425
Application No. 09/887,144
conductor 58 provides feedback. In contrast to this urging,
claim 17 on appeal does not recite a stated function of feedback
per se. All that is claimed is that there is a labeled “feedback
conductor,” which conductor is clearly comparable to at least
segment 58 in Kenoun’s figure 3, which also compares with
appellants’ showings in figures 3 through 5 of the disclosed
invention. The examiner’s view expressed in the paragraph
bridging pages 8-9 of the answer that the “claims are silent as
to any function the feedback conductor performs and thus this
argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims” is
well-taken. Notwithstanding these considerations, since the
structural arrangement of Kenoun’s figure 3 compares with the
disclosed, and even the broadly claimed version of disclosed
figures 3 through 5, the discussion at column 4 and the
discussion at the top half of column 5 appears to suggest to the
artisan a feedback capability even though we recognize it is not
explicitly taught.
Since appellants have grouped claim 17 as representative of
the subject matter of claims 17, 25, 26 and 30 through 32, the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
Because we disagree with the examiner’s views as to the
subject matter of dependent claim 18, the rejection of it and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007