Appeal No. 97-3561
Application No. 08/352,190
variations of RF signal train
generators and interferoceivers. Thus
the scope of the invention should be
determined by appended claims and
their legal equivalent, rather [than]
by the examples presented here.
The examiner has not responded to the merits of appellant’s
position in relying on this portion of the specification for
disclosure support under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We will not sustain this rejection. The examiner
does not contest that the disclosure satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 112
for the invention using optical fiber based elements. We are
aware of no requirement that forces appellant to narrow his
claimed invention to be commensurate in scope with the
preferred embodiment. In fact, the general rule is that an
inventor can claim his invention as broadly as the prior art
permits. Additionally, the examiner’s only rationale in
support of this rejection is rebutted by the specification as
noted by appellant in the reply brief. The examiner has
offered no response to appellant’s reply brief, and we find
appellant’s position to be legally and factually correct.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by the disclosure of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007