Appeal No. 1997-3792
Application No. 08/321,334
For the foregoing reasons, we are rejecting claim 1 and
its dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 (including originally
objected-to claim 4) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as lacking written description support in the application as
originally filed.
2. Indefiniteness (§ 112, ¶ 2)
We are also rejecting claim 1 under § 112, ¶ 2 as
indefinite because the absence of any reference to a "minimum
clock signal frequency value" in that claim makes the meaning
of the recited "maximum clock signal frequency value" unclear.
Maximum in comparison to what? Would the claimed "means . . .
for selecting a maximum clock signal frequency value" read on
a circuit that selects between a given clock signal frequency
and no clock frequency, i.e., gating a clock signal on and
off?
Unlike claim 4, dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 7-10 do not
remove this ambiguity and therefore are rejected on the same
ground. (We note that the expression "the minimum . . . clock
frequency" (emphasis added) in claim 8 lacks a clear
antecedent.)
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007