Appeal No. 96-3494
Application 08/160,299
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that claims 1-33 comply with the requirements of
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the
view that the provisional double patenting rejection of claims
1-33 should be reversed. Finally, we are of the view that the
collective evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 1, 7-10 and 16-33. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-33 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner asserts
that the second “and” in claim 1, line 10 and in claim 10,
line 16 is confusing in light of appellants’ disclosure. The
examiner also asserts that the scope of the phrase “a
predetermined one of said plurality of data registers” in
claims 2 and 11 is vague and indefinite [answer, page 3].
Appellants argue that the examiner’s position is erroneous and
explain why the claims satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §
112. We agree with appellants for the reasons indicated by
them. The examiner is misreading the claims in order to
support the rejection. The scope of the claims would be clear
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007