Appeal No. 1997-0234
Application 08/219,540
unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re
Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). We agree with the Examiner’s analysis at
page 6 of the Answer that concludes that the numerical value produced as a result of the differencing
operation recited as the last function in claim 11 is not indicative of the relative position of monitored
objects. In any case, this differencing operation is inconsistent with anything described in the
specification that would be related to the determination of a zero reference position. As such, we fail to
see how the skilled artisan would be able to determine the metes and bounds of the invention from the
presently recited language of clam 11.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
of appealed claims 8-11. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-11 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007