Appeal No. 2002-2169 Page 5
Application No. 09/163,286
dependent claim . . . ." Ex parte Moelands, 3 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1987).
Here, dependent claims 5 and 6 include the language "said time phase
difference. . . ." No such "time phase difference" has been previously recited in parent
claim 4. To the contrary, claim 4 merely specifies "a time difference. . . ." Therefore,
we affirm the indefiniteness rejection of claims 5 and 6.
Second, the examiner asserts, "[i]n claim 12, the language 'a reference oscillator
with a frequency offset' is not clear. An oscillator outputs a frequency signal; what is
the offset and to what does it refer?" (Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellants argue,
"[t]he claim itself explains the frequency offset 'is determined by the use of satellite
transmissions received by the satellite navigation receiver, and wherein a determination
of said frequency offset is used later in software to correct for frequency errors'."
(Appeal Br.1 at 5.)
"For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the argument shall
specify the errors in the rejection and how the claims particularly point out and distinctly
1We rely on and refer to the supplemental appeal brief, (Paper No. 17), in lieu of
the original appeal brief, (Paper No. 11), because the latter was defective. (Paper
No. 15.) The original appeal brief was not considered in deciding this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007