Appeal 2007-1083
Application 09/847,093
1 4) does not go to the merits of the indefiniteness rejection because the
2 equations on pages 5 and 6 of the Specification do not appear in the claims.
3 Nor is it clear that understanding these equations is required for an
4 understanding of the invention. In addition, the fact that the Examiner
5 cannot understand the invention does not address whether an artisan in the
6 Digital Signal Processing field could understand how to make and use the
7 invention without undue experimentation.
8 From all of the above, we hold that the Examiner has failed to
9 establish a prima facie case of indefiniteness of the claims. In addition,
10 because objections are petitionable and not normally decided on appeal, we
11 need not decide the objection. (See MPEP § 1201.)
12
13 CONCLUSION OF LAW
14 On the record before us, the Examiner has failed to show that the
15 claims are indefinite within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (second
16 paragraph). The rejection of claims 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (second
17 paragraph) is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013