Appeal No. 2001-0294
Application No. 09/004,399
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Davie 3,975,668 Aug. 17, 1976
Sander, Jr. (Sander) 4,658,308 Apr. 14, 1987
Aoshima et al. (Aoshima) 4,815,063 Mar. 21, 1989
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite.
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sander, Davie and Aoshima.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the answer (Paper No. 22, mailed April 4, 2000)2 and
the final rejection (Paper No. 15, mailed September 21, 1999) for
the Examiner’s reasoning, the appeal brief (Paper No. 20, filed
March 13, 2000) and the reply brief (Paper No. 23, filed June 8,
2000) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of the claims under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, Appellants argue that the claimed
recitation of “clock pulses” is fully supported by the
2 In a Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 26, mailed February
7, 2002) the Examiner corrected the grounds of rejection to include the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as set forth in the final rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007