Appeal No. 2000-0330 Page 13
Application No. 08/684,871
. . .” (Id.) The “shift between the main path and the
substitute path,” (id. at 5) “is equal to the difference between
the two counters CVPP and CVPS.” (Id.)
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that when the appellant’s
application was filed, the appellant had possession of
“calculation means for calculating a time shift between packets
received on said main path and on said substitute path, and check
means, responsive to said time shift, for checking the switching
to avoid packet losses or packet duplications.” Therefore, we
reject claims 18-37 as lacking an adequate written description.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 18-37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 2, is reversed. The rejection of claims 18-20 and 23-31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and the rejection of claims 21, 22, and
32-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are also reversed. A new
rejection of claims 18-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, is added.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007