Appeal No. 95-0840
Application 08/029,343
lead us to conclude that the artisan would have been in any way
deceived as to or find indefinite or vague the subject matter and
scope of the claimed invention.
Again, consistent with our enablement discussion, the claims
are clearly consistent with the written description and drawing
figures associated therewith. If the artisan were to agree with
the examiner’s view that in some manner the body of the claims
does not recite structure consistent with conventional meanings
in the art of a non-additive mixer, the artisan would have
clearly recognized this from the disclosure, the drawing figures
and the claims. Therefore, in this sense, the artisan clearly
would not have been deceived or otherwise view the presently
claimed subject matter as being unclear or indefinite in some
manner since the artisan clearly would have recognized the
misdescriptive nature of the invention as departing significantly
from prior art conventional understandings of non-additive
mixers.
We are also not convinced that the artisan would have been
convinced of such misdescriptive nature of each independent claim
on appeal since each in some form recites language to the effect
that the output of a mixer circuit is representative of the
product of the first video input and a mixer control signal plus
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007