Appeal No. 95-1217
Application 08/039,674
explanation, however, as to why a person of ordinary skill in
the art would be unable to make and use the claimed invention
due to the Appellants’ failure to label these items in Figure
3. To the contrary, given that the specification describes
the steps for each analysis chain in sequential order, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand where the
missing items should be located in Figure 3. The rejection is
therefore reversed.
The Examiner argues that the specification does not
clearly show how the output of step 90 is combined with the
output of step 92 and how the output of step 124 is combined
with the output of step 126. The Examiner has failed to
provide an adequate explanation as to why it would require
undue experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the
art to determine how to combine the outputs of these steps in
order to make and use the claimed invention. The rejection is
therefore reversed.
The Examiner argues that the specification should not use
the reference number "35" after the word "pixel" each time
that the word is encountered. In the Examiner’s view, using
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007