Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
that has been objected to before as not being enabled in the
specification and that claims 11, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth in
the objection to the specification. The examiner's previous
rejection indicated, inter alia, that the specification is
objected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
provide an enabling disclosure for the circuitry capable of
performing the function of the silence distinction circuit
recited in claim 17 (Paper No. 7, page 3). We reverse the
rejection.
The examiner has provided no more than the observation that
appellant has failed to provide specific circuitry for the
distinction circuit and the conclusion that this failure renders
the specification non-enabling with respect to the above claims.
However, patents are often granted to applicants where the
details of apparatus for performing known electronic functions
are not disclosed. Such apparatus includes counters and
comparators, even central processing units (CPU's). Patents are
not production documents. Here, it was incumbent on the examiner
to set forth a reasonable basis to conclude that one skilled in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007