Appeal No. 96-1233
Application 08/259,368
signals of claim 17 have event data generated therewith, yet
such language does not appear in claim 17. Appellants
proposed to amend the claim to include this language, but such
amendment has not been entered. The remaining arguments made
by appellants with respect to independent claim 17 recite
operational differences between the disclosed invention and
the Blasciak device which are not commensurate in scope with
the invention as claimed. For all the reasons just discussed,
we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102. Appellants make no additional arguments with
respect to dependent claims 20 and 21 so these claims fall
with claim 17 from which they depend.
With respect to dependent claim 18, the examiner has
shown how he reads the claim on Blasciak [answer, pages 5-6].
Appellants make some of the same arguments considered above
with respect to claim 17. These arguments are not persuasive
for the reasons already discussed above. Appellants argue
that the starting and stopping of a counter in Blasciak is not
analogous to the combining of data recited in claim 18. We do
not agree. The change in value of the counter from a start
value to an end value clearly represents a combination of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007