Appeal No. 95-3573
Application No. 07/839,704
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections.
In the non-enablement and indefiniteness rejections of
claims 86 and 87, the examiner states (Answer, page 5) that:
It is not seen where or how the “further” transistor of
claim 86 is supposed to be related to the memory cell
of claim 36. Note that, while applicant has made
reference to Figs. 20a-20c here, . . . whatever these
vague figures were intended to mean, which cannot be
understood, in any case it is clear that these figures
were an alternative to, and not a combination with, the
memory cells otherwise claimed here. Figs. 20a-20c
most certainly do not support these claims.
We agree with appellant’s argument (Brief, pages 25 and 26)
that:
We point out that in lines 20-23, page 37 of the
specification, a memory cell as presently claimed is
described as being connected with a sensor. FIGS. 20A-
20C . . . depict a combination of the claimed sensor
with a generic memory cell, not a sensor unit which
incorporates a memory device.
Accordingly, we disagree with the examiner that “these figures
[20A through 20C] were an alternative to, and not a combination
with, the memory cells otherwise claimed here.” The rejections
of claims 86 and 87 under the first and second paragraphs of
35 U.S.C. § 112 are reversed because the examiner has not
demonstrated that the skilled artisan would not have known how to
make and or use the disclosed and claimed invention without undue
experimentation, and that the claimed invention is indefinite.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007