Appeal No. 96-2551
Application 08/037,767
implicit, i.e., that pulses have magnitudes, which is akin to
reciting first and second circular openings having first and
second diameters. Furthermore, the language in question provides
antecedent basis for the limitation "below the first magnitude" in
the second "wherein" clause. Consequently, we agree with
appellant that it is not improper to recite that the secondary
pulses have first and second polarities and first and second
magnitudes.
The examiner's second criticism of the limitation
"secondary pulses of first and second polarities and first and
second magnitudes" is that it is "misdescriptive" because it
implies that the magnitude of the pulses of the first polarity can
be different from the magnitude of the pulses of the second
polarity, when the magnitudes are depicted as being the same in
Figure 5 and there is no indication in the specification that they
can have different magnitudes. He further contends it is well
known that pulse sources, such as source 20 of Figure 4,
conventionally provide pulses that are equally spaced and have
equal width and magnitude. Even assuming that all of these
allegations are correct, they do not establish that claim 1
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007